j  }.\|$> ! }H)«!  'h  r.i \.  •.!).!  */.  • :  ‘  ■  ■•  ■  >  .  • ; 


)4V! 


'?  r 


% .  V-J 


V  1 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINCETON.  N.  J. 
Presented  by 

ohe  C\uAJr'hor. 

Division .  at. 

Section . ... . .  51  . 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/syllabusofsystern00clar_0 


A  SYLLABUS 


OF 

Systematic  Theology 


By 

*/ 

DAVID  S.  CLARK,  D.  D. 

Instructor  in  Systematic  Theology  in  the 
Philadelphia  School  of  Christian  Workers 

of  the 

Presbyterian  and  Reformed 

Churches 


For  use  in  schools  and  classes. 

/ 


SECOND  EDITION. 

Revised  and  enlarged.  Published  by  the  writer. 


TO 

My  beloved  teachers  in  Systematic  Theology, 

Prof.  Archibald  Alexander  Hodge,  I).  D. 
Prof.  Francis  L.  Patton,  D.  D. 

Principal  John  Cairns,  D.  D. 

this  volume  is  reverently  dedicated. 


BRIEF  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

(A  more  complete  index  of  each  part  precedes  each  part.) 
Introduction. 

Chapter  I.  Definition . 12 

II.  Method . 13 

III.  Source . 15 

Part  First,  Bibliology. 

Chapter  I.  The  Scriptures . 17 

II.  The  Rule  of  Faith . 55 

Part  Second,  Theology  Proper. 

Chapter  I.  Can  God  be  Known  ? . 59 

II.  Proofs  for  the  Existence  of  God  .  .  62 

III.  Anti-Theistic  Theories . 73 

IV.  Anti-Christian  Theories . 80 

V.  The  Nature  of  God . 89 

VI.  The  Decrees  of  God . 102 

VII.  The  Works  of  God . 105 

Appendix  A.  The  System  of  Kant . 355 

Appendix  B.  A  Summary  of  Ritschlianism  .  .  359 

Part  Third,  Anthropology. 

Chapter  I.  The  Origin  of  Man . 142 

II.  The  Descent  or  Propagation  of  Man  .  154 

III.  The  Antiquity  of  Man . 156 

IV.  The  Nature  of  Man . 158 

V.  The  Original  State  of  Man  ....  166 

VI.  The  Covenant  of  Works . 168 

VII.  The  Fall  of  Man . 170 

VIII.  The  Relation  of  Adam  to  his  Posterity.  172 

IX.  Sin . 174 

X.  Inability . 195 

Appendix  C.  The  Admissions  of  Evolutionists  and 

Testimony  of  Scientists  .  .  .  362 


—3— 


BRIEF  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (Continued) 


Part  Fourth, 

Chapter  I. 
II. 

III. 

IV. 
V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 


Soteriology. 

The  Presuppositions  of  Soteriology 

God’s  Purpose  to  Save . 

The  Historical  Antecedents  of  Redemp¬ 
tion  . 

The  Redeemer . 

The  Atonement . 

Vocation . 

Grace . 

Regeneration . 

Faith . 

Conversion . 

Justification . 

Sanctification . 

Perseverance . 

The  Sacraments . 


200 

201 

221 

227 

244 

279 

280 
282 
284 
287 
290 
298 
302 
304 


Part  Fifth,  Eschatology. 

Chapter  I.  The  Immortality  of  the  Soul  .  .  .  311 

II.  The  State  of  the  Soul  after  Death  .  .  318 

III.  The  Resurrection  of  the  Body  .  .  .  319 

IV.  The  Identity  of  the  Resurrection  Body  324 


V.  The  Second  Advent . 326 

VI.  Future  Punishment . 350 

VII.  Second  Probation . 351 

VIII.  Heaven . 353 

Appendix  D.  The  Man  of  Sin . 367 


Appendix  E.  Fixing  the  Date  of  Christ’s  Return  369 


— 4— 


PREFACE. 


1.  This  is  a  Syllabus.  It  presents  only  a  brief  out¬ 
line  for  school  and  class.  A  few  subjects  are  treated  at 
some  length  because,  either  they  have  been  matters  of 
controversy,  or  have  special  interest  at  the  present  time, 
e.  g.  Miracles,  Election,  Justification,  Atonement,  Christ’s 
Second  Advent  and  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

2.  The  Scriptures  are  the  authoritative  source  of 
Christian  theology. 

We  have  used  to  some  extent  a  proof-text  method, 
well  aware  of  the  modern  objection  to  proof-texts.  We 
believe  that  the  exhibition  of  Scriptural  teaching  is  the 
true  method  of  Christian  theology,  and  when  a  proof-text 
is  properly  interpreted  according  to  its  context  and  the 
analogy  of  faith,  it  is  not  only  a  legitimate  method,  but 
absolutely  authoritative. 

Biblical  theology  has  its  place  and  gets  due  weight 
in  the  formulation  of  doctrine,  but  cannot  appear  at  length 
in  a  syllabus,  and  must  depend  at  any  rate  upon  the  proper 
interpretation  of  the  text. 

Proof-texts  may  be,  and  have  been,  sadly  misused. 
Some  minds  have  the  faculty  of  finding,  in  any  text,  what¬ 
ever  they  are  seeking,  even  when  it  is  not  there.  But  the 
abuse  of  a  method  is  no  refutation  of  its  proper  use,  and 
we  hope  we  have  used  the  method,  where  it  is  used,  in 
a  legitimate  way. 

The  true  method  of  theology  is  inductive,  the  gather¬ 
ing  and  classifying  of  facts,  chiefly  from  the  Scriptures, 
supported  by  any  evidence  from  external  sources,  and  thus 
providing  the  basis  for  doctrinal  definition  in  accordance 
with  the  induction.  The  vital  question  for  the  Christian 
theologian  is:  What  has  God  said?  Modernistic  attempts 
at  theology  are  largely  speculative,  with  no  authority  but 
the  ipse  dixit  of  the  writer.  For  an  example  see  “Christ¬ 
ianity  in  its  Modern  Expression”,  by  the  late  Prof.  Geo. 
B.  Foster. 

The  Biblical  source  and  the  inductive  method  exclude 
no  light  from  other  sources.  The  field  of  induction  is  as 
wide  as  the  universe  and  as  deep  as  being.  No  field  opens 


6 


PREFACE 


so  wide  a  vista  as  theology.  All  science,  all  philosophy, 
all  psychology,  all  realms  of  knowledge  lay  down  their 
contributions  to  “the  queen  of  the  sciences”. 

3.  Much  criticism  has  been  directed,  in  late  years, 
against  theology,  as  if  it  were  an  outgrown  and  useless, 
science.  As  well  might  the  physician  repudiate  anatomy 
and  materia  medica,  or  the  jurist  despise  Blackstone  and 
the  laws  of  evidence.  All  men  are  “incurably  religious” 
and  all  men  have  a  theology  and  must  have  one,  whether 
they  recognize  it  or  not. 

Theology  will  not  cease  to  be  a  science  till  men  cease 
to  think,  or  till  they  cease  to  ask :  Whence  did  I  come,  what 
am  I  here  for,  and  whither  am  1  going?  Principal  P.  T. 
Forsyth  says:  “The  prime  need  of  religion  today  is  a  theol¬ 
ogy.  Some  minds,  demoralized  by  their  very  religion,  cry 
out  against  theology,  metaphysics,  and  academics.  It  is 
a  cry  charged  with  the  ruin  of  the  Christian  future.” 

4.  Theo-centric  and  Christo-centric  theologies  are  not 
in  direct  antithesis.  The  Theo-centric  view  is  Theo-centric 
in  regard  to  the  source  from  which  the  system  flows.  The 
Christo-centric  view  is  Christo-centric  in  regard  to  the 
fact  toward  which  it  flows,  or  in  regard  to  the  fact  in 
which  the  system  centers.  One  conceives  of  theology  as 
proceeding  from  God,  the  other  considers  it  as  finding  its 
chief  expression  in  Christ, — the  terminus  a  quo,  and  the 
terminus  ad  quern  of  revelation, — the  point  from  which 
and  the  point  to  which  one  looks  in  his  theological  vision. 

5.  In  dealing  with  the  subject  of  theology,  it  is  pos¬ 
itively  painful  that  a  work  like  this  cannot  give  even  scant 
mention  of  the  literature  of  theology.  What  a  literature! 
How  rich  and  vast  and  varied!  How  soul-gripping  in  its 
fascination!  Alas  that  life  is  short! 

6.  The  division  is  into  five  parts :  Bibliology,  Theology 
Proper,  Anthropology,  Soteriology,  and  Eschatology. 

For  advantage  in  teaching  the  index  of  each  part  will 
be  found  preceding  that  part;  with  some  appendices  at 
the  end  of  the  volume. 

7.  As  portions  of  this  work  were  prepared  for  class 
excercises  with  no  view  to  publication,  a  few  references 
have  been  lost,  we  trust  they  are  not  many.  We  cheerful¬ 
ly  acknowledge  indebtedness  to  the  following: — 


PREFACE 


7 


Systematic  Theology, — Charles  Hodge. 

Outlines  of  Theology, — A.  A.  Hodge. 

Dogmatic  Theology, — W.  G.  T.  Shedd. 

System  of  Christian  Doctrine, — I.  A.  Dorner. 

Systematic  Theology, — A.  H.  Strong. 

Outlines  of  Christian  Theology, — W.  N.  Clarke. 

System  of  Christian  Theology, — Henry  B.  Smith. 

Commentary  on  Confession  of  Faith, — A.  A.  Hodge. 

Summary  of  Doctrine, — Francis  L.  Patton. 

Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief, — Theodore  Christ- 
lieb. 

The  Atonement, — R.  W.  Dale. 

History  of  Doctrine, — W.  G.  T.  Shedd. 

Anti-Theistic  Theories, — Robert  Flint. 

Theism, — Robert  Flint. 

Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality, — S.  D.  F.  Salmond. 

The  Personality  of  God, — J.  H.  Snowden. 

The  Coming  of  the  Lord;  Will  it  be  Premillennial? — 
J.  Ii.  Snowden. 

The  Second  Advent, — David  Brown. 

The  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia,  old  and  new  editions. 

Theopneustia, — L.  Gaussen. 

The  Authoritative  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture, — 
C.  H.  Waller. 

The  Modern  Theory  of  the  Bible, — Samuel  A.  Steel. 

Q.  E.  D. — George  McCready  Price. 

Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, — Francis  L.  Patton. 

The  Ritschlian  Theology, — James  Orr. 

Modern  Philosophy, — Francis  Bowen. 

Belief  in  God, — Charles  Gore. 

8.  Many  study-classes  have  been  conducted  in  recent 
years,  in  the  church  and  out  of  it,  covering  a  variety  of 
subjects.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  most  interesting, 
vital,  and  useful  of  all  subjects,  Christian  Doctrine,  may 
have  as  large  a  place  in  such  study-classes  as  the  import¬ 
ance  of  the  subject  deserves.  If  this  volume  shall  con¬ 
tribute  to  this  end,  its  publication  will  be  justified. 

Not  every  chapter  is  suitable  to  every  class.  The 
judgment  of  the  teacher  and  the  character  of  the  class 
must  determine  the  use. 

The  writer  has  endeavored  by  simple  language  and 
explicit  analysis  to  make  the  great  subjects  of  theology 
easily  comprehensible. 


PREFACE 


A 

8 

No  one  is  more  alive  to  the  deficiencies  of  the  volume 
than  the  writer,  who  regrets  that  necessity  for  its  use 
hurried  the  publication  before  it  could  be  brought  to  fin¬ 
ished  form.  Also  that  the  warmth  and  glow  that  should 
characterize  religious  subjects  are  lost  in  condensation.  It 
is  hoped  at  least  that  those  desiring  a  bird’s-eye-view  of 
theological  subjects,  a  multum  in  parvo,  may  find  it  here. 
Deo  gloria. 

David  S.  Clark. 

2438  North  19th  St., 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 

August  20,  1921. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


In  presenting  this  second  edition  to  the  schools  and 
scholars  of  the  country,  we  desire,  first  of  all,  to  acknow¬ 
ledge  the  kindly  reception  accorded  to  the  first  edition. 
That  it  was  so  quickly  sold  out  w'as  gratifying  as  an  evi¬ 
dence  of  its  welcome  by  students  of  theology. 

The  gratitude  of  the  writer  is  expressed  to  The  Pres¬ 
byterian  for  an  extended  notice  on  the  editorial  page,  and 
for  a  place  in  its  “Book-Shelf”  column  by  a  competent 
reviewer.  A  similar  acknowledgement  is  due  to  The  Bible 
Champion  for  a  highly  commendatory  article  from  the  pen 
of  Prof.  Leander  S.  Keyser,  D.  D.  Further  we  greatly 
appreciate  the  kind  words  of  Dr.  J.  H.  Dulles,  librarian 
of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary;  also  of  Horace  C.  Stan¬ 
ton,  D.  D.,  for  a  special  examination  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Atonement,  and  the  Second  Coming  of  our  Lord;  and 
of  Prof.  Francis  L.  Patton,  D.  D.,  L.  L.  D.,  for  commend¬ 
ation  of  the  work  as  a  whole;  and  of  many  others  whose 
expressions  of  appreciation  have  been  highly  valued. 

This  second  edition  presents  some  changes.  The 
work  is  divided  into  five  parts  instead  of  the  customary 
four;  the  added  part  being  “Bibliology,”  involving  the 
source  of  revealed  theology  and  the  nature  of  that  source. 

Additions  have  been  made  to  those  parts  relating  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  Inspiration,  Atonement, 
Election,  Creation,  the  theory  of  evolution,  and  minor  ad¬ 
ditions  to  other  parts.  Several  appendices  also  have  been 
added  at  the  end  of  the  volume  for  collateral  and  sup¬ 
plementary  study. 

As  formerly  the  writer  regrets  that  urgent  haste  for 
its  use  has  left  some  parts  undeveloped  and  some  others 
in  bare  outline,  leaving  the  treatment  in  some  dispropor¬ 
tion.  It  is  hoped  that  the  well  furnished  teacher  will  sup¬ 
ply  the  lack  as  may  be  desired. 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  index  of  each 
part  precedes  that  part,  for  convenient  reference  in  study 
and  teaching.  Attention  is  also  called  to  Summaries  of 
certain  long  chapters  and  sections  at  the  close  of  such 
chapter  or  section,  in  order  to  present  a  concise  and  com¬ 
pact  view. 


'9 


—9— 


10 


PREFACE 


We  confidently  expect  that  theology  or  doctrine  will 
find  its  deserved  place  in  religious  thought  and  education. 
Whatever  has  been  said,  in  recent  years,  derogatory  to 
this  branch  of  study,  has  been  exceedingly  superficial  and 
ill-timed  in  view  of  the  world’s  great  need  of  sober  and 
satisfying  truth.  The  truth  about  God  and  destiny  and 
the  way  to  eternal  life  can  never  be  unimportant  to  an 
immortal  being.  If  men  think  at  all,  these  are  things 
that  must  press  for  consideration.  They  are  age-long, 
and  race-old  questions  and  can  be  forgotten  only  when 
the  race  has  sunk  into  idiocy  or  lost  the  image  of  God. 

Dr.  Francis  G.  Peabody,  professor  emeritus  of  Harvard 
University  says:  “Instead  of  being  an  outgrown  science, 
theology  turns  out  to  be  the  passionate  interest  of  millions 
of  plain  people.  Human  nature  is  incorrigibly  theological. 
The  fruitless  and  loose  thinking  on  great  themes  is  an 
indication,  not  that  the  world  has  outgrown  theology,  but 
that  if  theology  be  not  promoted  by  trained  and  disciplined 
scholars,  then  it  is  sure  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  untrained 
and  undisciplined  minds.” 

“As  a  man  thinketh  in  his  heart  so  he  is.”  All  a 
man’s  life  turns  on  what  he  thinks ;  and  most  of  all  on  what 
he  thinks  of  God. 


i 


2438  North  19th  Street., 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 


David  S.  Clark, 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 
Introduction. 

Index  Page. 

Chapter  I.  Definition. 

Chapter  II.  Method. 

Section  I.  Speculative. 

Section  II.  Mystical. 

Section  III.  Inductive. 

Chapter  III.  The  Source. 

Section  I.  Natural  Theology. 

Section  II.  Revealed  Theology. 


Part  First.  Bibliology. 


Chapter  I.  The  Scriptures. 


Section  I. 
Section  II. 
Section  III. 
Section  IV. 
Section  V. 
Section  VI. 


Revelation  from  God. 
Inspiration  of  Scriptures. 
Authority  of  Scriptures. 
Completeness  of  Scriptures. 
Perspicuity  of  Scriptures. 
Text  of  Scriptures. 


Chapter  II.  The  Rule  of  Faith. 


Section  I. 
Section  II. 
Section  III. 


Rationalist  Rule  of  Faith. 
Roman  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith. 
Protestant  Rule  of  Faith. 


—ll 


Systematic  theology. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Chapter  I.  Definition  and  Scope. 

1.  The  word  theology  is  derived  from  two  Greek 
words,  theos,  God;  and  logos,  discourse.  A  sufficient  def¬ 
inition  therefore,  for  all  practical  purposes,  is,  Theology 
is  the  science  that  deals  with  our  knowledge  of  God  and 
his  relation  to  men. 

2.  Theology  is  a  science,  and  sometimes  called,  “The 
Queen  of  the  Sciences,”  an  appelation  well  deserved. 

Science  is  not  only  a  collection  of  facts,  but  the  discov¬ 
ery  and  statement  of  the  laws  that  govern  them.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  theology  as  a  science,  gathers  and  arranges  the  facts, 
and  points  out  their  relations;  thus  seeking  to  present  the 
subject  in  an  orderly  and  harmonius  system.  Hence  we 
call  this  science  appropriately  Systematic  Theology. 

3.  The  theologian  endeavors  to  construct  and  present 
a  consistent  system.  All  truth  is  consistent.  God  has 
revealed  himself  in  various  ways;  and  all  God’s  revelations 
must  be  consistent.  There  cannot  be  contrariety  in  God; 
nor  in  his  revelations  of  himself  and  his  will.  This  is 
axiomatic  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Christian  theologian. 
One  criterion  to  determine  the  truth  of  a  proposition  is 
its  harmony  with  all  known  truth.  Two  contradictory 
propositions  cannot  both  be  true;  though  some  philosoph¬ 
ical  systems  so  assert.  The  innate  common  sense  of  man¬ 
kind  is  better  than  some  philosophy. 

But  a  true  philosophy  and  a  true  theology  will  be  con¬ 
sistent  in  its  various  parts ;  consistent  with  all  known 
truth;  and  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  human  mind. 

4.  It  follows  further  that  theology  is  a  comprehensive 
subject.  All  branches  of  knowledge  contribute  to  it.  All 
truth  is,  in  some  way,  an  expression  of  God’s  nature  and 
relation  to  the  universe  and  to  men.  And  he  knows  God 
best  who  knows  best  all  the  realms  of  truth  which  God  has 
made  accessible  to  the  human  mind. 

5.  Theology  is  of  universal  interest.  Every  man  has 
a  theology  whether  he  knows  it  or  not.  Every  man’s  life 
and  destiny  are  affected  by  what  he  believes  about  God 
and  his  will.  “As  a  man  thinketh  in  his  heart  so  is  he.” 


—12— 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


And  nothing’  so  affects  the  life  and  character  of  a  man  as 
his  knowledge  of  God  or  the  lack  of  it.  Theology  is  there¬ 
fore  the  most  vital  and  fundamental  of  all  studies. 

To  such  a  study,  man  may  well  bring  his  liveliest  in¬ 
terest,  his  keenest  apprehension,  his  loftiest  powers  of 
mind,  and  his  most  assiduous  labors;  calling  upon  his  soul 
and  all  that  is  within  him,  to  attend  seriously  and  rever¬ 
ently  to  the  great  and  solemn  subjects  that  concern  God 
and  his  own  destiny;  and  praying:  Lord,  “open  thou  mine 
eyes  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law.” 


Chapter  II.  Method. 


There  are  several  methods  of  constructing  a  system 
of  theology;  and  it  is  needful  to  say  that  the  method  has 
much  to  do  with  the  results. 

A  false  or  defective  method  will  necessarily  destroy 
or  impair  the  output. 


Section  I.  The  Speculative  Method. 

This  method  is  deductive; — deducing  the  system  from 
a  priori  philosophical  principle.  The  system  of  theology 
is  thus  made  to  conform  to  the  philosophical  principles 
previously  assumed. 

If  one  assumes  a  Deistic,  or  Pantheistic,  or  a  Ration¬ 
alistic,  or  Evolutionary  philosophy,  the  great  subjects  of 
theology  will  be  materially  modified. 

There  are  certain  great  outstanding  examples  of  this 
method. 

Schleiermacher  was  essentially  a  Pantheist  and  all  his 
theology  is  constructed  from  that  standpoint.  Hence  his 
theology  is  lame  on  such  great  doctrines  as  the  Scriptures, 
the  Incarnation,  the  Person  of  Christ,  the  Atonement,  and 
the  Personality  of  God. 

So,  also,  Modernism  is  a  speculative  system  based  on 
an  evolutionary  philosophy;  hence  affecting  such  doctrines 
as  the  Fall,  Sin,  the  Scriptures,  the  Atonement,  and  the 
relation  of  Christianity  to  the  other  religions  of  the  world. 


14 


INTRODUCTION 


Section  II.  The  Mystical  Method. 

There  were  those  who  claimed  special  revelations  from 
God  apart  from  and  superior  to  the  Scriptures,  and  form¬ 
ulated  their  theology  from  these  supposed  revelations. 
Examples  are  found  in  the  early  Mystics,  Swedenborg,  the 
Anabaptists,  and  Joseph  Smith,  and  the  Mormons. 

The  mystic  depends  on  internal  or  subjective  impres¬ 
sions  or  convictions  rather  than  on  external  authority  and 
instruction.  There  is  an  element  of  Rationalism  in  Mysti¬ 
cism.  It  is  said:  “Warm  up  a  rationalist  and  you  have  a 
mystic;  cool  down  a  mystic  and  you  have  a  rationalist.” 

They  agree  in  rating  their  subjective  conceptions  a- 
bove  external  authority  or  revelation  in  the  ordinary  sense. 
Consequently  they  make  much  of  experience  as  a  rule  of 
faith.  There  are  modern  as  well  as  ancient  types.  The 
modern  pentecostal  movement  leans  toward  such  subject¬ 
ive  standards.  The  followers  of  William  Miller,  who  fixed 
the  date  of  the  Second  Advent  in  1843  A.  D.  believed  that 
in  answer  to  prayer  they  had  obtained  the  power  to  in¬ 
terpret  prophecy.  Relying  on  this  subjective  conviction, 
some  of  them  sold  their  property,  robed  themselves  in 
white,  and  awaited  the  advent  on  a  certain  night  in  Oct¬ 
ober  1843.  The  sad  sequence  displayed  the  error  of  the 
method. 

Experience  is  valuable  but  must  be  tested  by  the  word 
of  God,  and  not  vice  versa.  Experience  may  be  exalted 
too  much  as  is  the  tendency  in  certain  quarters  today. 
Experience  is  not  the  sole  test  of  truth,  since  there  is 
much  truth  that  rests  on  historical  grounds,  or  furnished 
by  testimony,  or  revelation,  and  which  does  not  come  with¬ 
in  the  realm  of  experiential  possibility.  The  resurrection 
of  Christ,  for  instance,  a  fundamental  Christian  doctrine, 
can  never  be  proved  or  disproved  by  experience;  except 
that  a  regenerated  life  is  corroborative  evidence  of  a  living 
and  reigning  Saviour.  Experience  may  corroborate  but 
not  supersede  the  written  word. 

The  mystical  method  has  its  serious  dangers. 


Section  III.  The  Inductive  Method. 

The  inductive  method  is  the  method  of  natural  science ; 
namely  the  gathering  of  facts,  the  classification  of  them, 
and  the  study  of  the  laws  that  govern  them.  This  is 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


the  true  method  in  theology  as  in  all  science.  Every  true 
science  is  based  on  facts.  Science  that  is  not  based  on 
facts  is  not  science.  The  ancients  who  constructed  their 
cosmogony  from  imagination,  first  deceived  the  world  and 
then  amused  it. 

The  modern  embryologist,  who  constructed  his  plates, 
not  from  observation,  but  from  what  he  thought  ought 
to  be  the  process  of  foetal  development,  awoke  the  con¬ 
tradiction  of  men  who  were  accustomed  to  observe  before 
they  wrote. 

The  true  scientist  gathers  his  facts  from  the  field 
of  nature,  making  as  complete  an  induction  as  possible, 
classifying  them  on  the  ground  of  similarities,  and  thus 
forms  his  science  on  the  ground  of  observed  facts. 

So  the  true  theologian  looks  at  all  the  revelations  of 
God,  whether  in  the  physical  universe,  or  in  the  history 
of  man,  or  in  the  constitution  of  the  human  soul,  or  in 
the  revelation  of  the  written  word,  and  combines  all  into 
a  harmonius  and  consistent  system. 

This  is  the  inductive  method;  valid  alike  in  physical 
science,  in  metaphysics*,  in  philosophy,  and  in  theology. 

*It  was  the  distinguishing  glory  of  the  Scottish  Philosophy 
that  it  applied  observation  and  induction  to  the  problems  of  meta¬ 
physics. 


Chapter  III.  Source. 

It  is  customary  to  consider  this  subject  under  two 
heads. 

Section  I.  Natural  Theology. 

This  embraces  the  facts  contained  in  the  works  of 
God  as  distinct  from  the  written  revelation.  Under  this 
subject  we  include  not  only  inanimate  nature,  but  human 
nature,  history,  providence,  etc.,  in  all  that  they  reveal 
concerning  God. 

1.  The  created  universe  reveals  much  concerning  God. 
To  this  the  Scriptures  bear  witness. 

Ps.  19:1.  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God  and  the  firm¬ 
ament  showeth  his  handiwork.  Day  unto  day  uttereth  speech  and 
night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge. 


16 


INTRODUCTION 


Rom.  1:20.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation 
of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  made. 

It  is  said  that  Napoleon  once  answered  the  cavils  of 
skeptics  by  waving  his  hand  toward  the  stars  and  saying: 
“Who  made  these?” 

It  was  one  of  the  features  of  the  Deism  of  the  eight¬ 
eenth  century  that  it  repudiated  revealed  religion  in  favor 
of  natural  religion.  But  it  is  the  testimony  of  all  history 
that  the  world  has  never  been  made  better  nor  human¬ 
ity  uplifted  by  a  purely  natural  religion. 

2.  Natural  theology  is  insufficient  for  the  needs  of 
man. 

(a)  It  tells  of  no  way  of  pardon  and  peace  with  God. 

(b)  It  provides  no  escape  from  sin,  and  its  conse¬ 
quences.  Nature  inevitably  inflicts  its  penalty  for  a  broken 
law  unless  superseded  by  a  higher  power. 

(c)  It  offers  no  way  of  salvation. 

(d)  It  has  no  dynamic,  or  incentive  to  holiness. 

(e)  It  contains  no  sure  revelation  of  the  future. 

(f)  It  leaves  man  in  the  hands  of  natural  law  which 
apart  from  divine  power  is  irrevocable  in  itself,  and  ir¬ 
reversible  in  its  processes. 

In  natural  theology,  man  seeks  God;  in  revealed  theol¬ 
ogy,  God  seeks  man. 


4 

Section  II.  Revealed  Theology. 

Revealed  theology  is  that  which  is  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

The  Scriptures  contain  all  the  necessary  facts.  Re¬ 
vealed  theology  teaches  all  that  natural  theology  teaches 
and  more.  Whatever  may  be  known  about  God  and  his 
relation  to  men  from  the  material  universe  or  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  human  mind  is  recognized  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  theologian  does  not  discard  any  truth  whether 
in  nature  or  revelation;  but  as  all  truth  is  harmonious, 
the  facts  of  natural  theology  and  the  facts  of  revealed 
theology  do  not  contradict,  but  supplement  each  other. 

But  revelation  is  the  paramount  source  of  our  know¬ 
ledge  of  God  and  his  will,  and  our  duty.  A  Christian 
theology  therefore  is  built  primarily  upon  the  Scriptures. 


PART  FIRST,  BIBLIOLOGY. 


Bibliology  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  Since  the  Scriptures  are  the 
main  source  of  Christian  theology,  this  subject  is  of  very 
great  importance.  What  one  thinks  of  the  Scriptures  de¬ 
termines  the  whole  cast  or  color  of  his  theology.  If  one 
believes  that  the  Scriptures  are  God's  word,  inspired  and 
authoritative,  his  theology  is  one  thing.  But  if  he  re¬ 
gards  the  Scriptures  as  ordinary  human  literature,  his 
theology  will  be  a  vastly  different  thing.  This  is  the  main 
dividing  line  between  orthodoxy  and  modernism. 


Chapter  I.  The  Scriptures. 


Section  I.  The  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God. 

By  this  we  do  not  mean  that  everything  in  the  Bible 
was  supernaturally  revealed  to  the  mind  of  man.  Much 
was  drawn  from  human  records  and  human  observation 
and  did  not  require  supernatural  disclosure;  but  all  of  it 
was  divinely  chosen  and  given  to  be  God's  message  to  man. 

“One  of  the  best  evidences  that  the  Bible  is  a  reve¬ 
lation  from  God,  is  that  it  is  a  revelation  of  God.” — Francis 
L.  Patton. 

1.  If  there  is  a  good  God,  there  is  certainly  a  revela¬ 
tion.  We  cannot  conceive  that  God  would  not  reveal  him¬ 
self.  We  cannot  conceive  that  a  natural  father  would  for¬ 
ever  conceal  himself  from  his  son,  and  never  have  com¬ 
munication  with  him.  No  more  can  we  conceive  that  a 
good  God  would  withhold  a  knowledge  of  his  being  and 
his  will  from  the  children  he  has  created  in  his  own  im¬ 
age.  He  made  man  capable  of  knowing,  obeying,  and 
worshiping  him,  and  a  revelation  is  necessary  to  meet  these 
capabilities. 

There  is  the  strongest  presumption  possible  in  favor 
of  a  revelation.  The  presumption  is  so  strong  that  we 
would  be  disappointed,  nay  dumfounded,  if  there  were 
none.  We  would  search  the  world  for  a  revelation  if  we 


—17 


18 


BIBLIOLOGY 


had  none  at  hand.  A  heathen’s  first  question  on  meeting 
a  white  man  was:  “Have  you  any  news  from  above?” 
With  all  men’s  sinfulness  and  darkness  of  mind,  there  has 
been  an  irrepressible  disposition  in  the  human  race  to 
search  after  God,  as  Paul  says:  “If  haply  they  may  feel 
after  him  and  find  him.” 

2.  If  there  is  a  written  revelation,  the  Bible  of  all 
books  fills  the  bill. 

(a)  Because  there  is  no  other  book  comparable  to 
the  Bible,  much  less  with  superior  claims.  All  other  pre¬ 
tended  revelations  are  so  inferior  that  they  stand  in  con¬ 
trast  rather  than  in  comparison.  This  is  notably  true  of 
the  old  cosmogonies  full  of  absurdities  and  impossibilities. 
And  if  choice  must  be  made  between  the  Biblical  plan  of 
salvation  with  its  gift  of  eternal  life,  and  the  Buddhistic 
plan  and  offer  of  absolute  annihilation  as  the  highest  good, 
man  will  instinctively  know  how  to  choose.  The  Koran, 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  other  supposed  revelations  are 
inferior  in  all  respects. 

(b)  If  the  Bible  is  not  the  revelation  of  God,  there 
is  none  in  the  world.  Such  a  conclusion  we  decline  to  ac¬ 
cept. 

3.  It  is  beyond  controversy  that  the  Bible  is  generally 
trustworthy. 

It  is  as  credible  as  ordinary  history  at  least. 

On  the  face  of  it,  it  is  a  plain  book  and  honest  in 
its  statements.  If  the  Bible  can  be  believed  at  all,  then 
we  may  believe  what  it  says  about  itself;  and  hundreds  of 
times  it  says:  “Thus  saith  the  Lord.”  Its  writers  bear 
all  the  appearance  of  honest  men.  They  suffered  perse¬ 
cution  and  the  loss  of  all  things  for  their  faith  and  sealed 
their  testimony  with  their  blood. 

Its  historical  and  prophetical  statements  have  stood 
the  test  of  examination  and  the  fire  of  criticism.  The 
psalmist  says:  “The  word  of  the  Lord  is  tried.”  i.  e.  tried 
and  proved  true.  It  has  been  tried  by  time,  by  science, 
by  philosophy,  and  best  of  all  by  human  experience. 

4.  The  facts  of  the  book  show  its  divine  authorship. 

(a)  Attested  by  miracles. 

(b)  Reveals  what  only  God  could  know;  e.  g.  his¬ 
tory  of  creation,  fate  of  the  world  prophecies. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


19 


(c)  It  has  the  loftiest  moral  system  in  the  world, 
e.  g.  The  Ten  Commandments,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
and  the  Great  Commandment:  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself.’’  No  higher  standard  ever  has  been  or  can 
be  set. 

(d)  The  power  it  exercises  over  the  world.  What 
other  book  has  brought  to  the  world  such  a  civilizing  and 
sanctifying  power.  Civilization  is  just  about  coterminous 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible. 

(e)  It  tells  what  man  most  needs  to  know.  Meets 
his  needs  mental  and  spiritual.  Reveals  the  whence,  what, 
and  whither  of  life.  Comforts  him  in  sorrow,  gives  pur¬ 
pose  to  his  life,  reassures  him  in  face  of  death.  Holds 
out  the  incentive  of  a  beatific  destiny.  Gives  a  remedy 
for  sin,  and  a  way  of  salvation;  is  in  fact  what  one  would 
expect  of  a  revelation.  It  accurately  portrays  the  human 
heart,  and  offers  the  only  remedy  for  sin  which  the  world 
knows. 

At  the  World’s  Fair  at  Chicago  in  1893,  there  was 
a  parliament  of  religions.  One  by  one,  leading  men  arose 
and  spoke  for  Buddhism,  Confucianism,  Hinduism  and 
Mohammedanism.  Then  Joseph  Cook  arose  to  speak  for 
Christianity.  Holding  out  his  hand,  he  asked  them  all 
this  question  of  Lady  McBeth:  “Who  will  wash  white  my 
red  right  hand?” 

“Can  Confucianism?  You  do  not  even  claim  to  do 
so?  Can  Hinduism,  Mohammedanism,  or  Buddhism?  You 
do  not  claim  to  do  so,  nor  do  you  say  that  your  religion 
can  do  so.  But  it  is  a  known  fact  that  Christianity  claims 
to  do  that  very  thing  and  does  it.” 

The  message  of  the  Bible  is  adapted  to  every  man, 
in  every  rank,  in  every  clime,  in  every  age.  Equally  good 
for  the  millionaire  and  the  beggar;  for  the  intellectual  of 
Boston  and  the  Esquimeau  of  Point  Barrow;  for  the  years 
of  health  and  vigor,  and  the  hour  when  a  man  turns  his 
face  to  the  wall  and  looks  into  the  darkness  of  death  and 
the  dissolution  of  the  grave.  It  is  the  one  book  of  the 
world  never  out  of  place  nor  out  of  date. 

(f)  The  harmony  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible  is 
evidently  a  supernatural  effect.  It  is  difficult  to  get  a 
number  of  persons  to  tell  a  story  without  vast  disagree- 


20 


BIBLIOLOGY 


ment,  and  the  longer  the  story,  and  the  farther  in  time  and 
space  the  narrators  are  separated,  the  greater  the  difficulty 
will  be. 

But  here  is  a  book  written  by  about  thirty  different 
men,  of  different  grades  and  stations,  kings,  statesmen, 
scribes,  nomads,  scholar,  peasant,  herdsmen,  fruit  vender, 
warriors,  chiefs,  fishermen,  publican,  tradesmen,  physician, 
schoolman,  etc.  They  lived  at  different  times  over  a  space 
of  1500  years,  and  most  of  them  never  saw  each  other, 
nor  communicated  with  each  other,  with  no  possibility  of 
collusion,  and  yet  they  have  produced  a  harmonious  whole. 
Their  style  and  minds  differ,  their  tastes  and  customs 
have  no  similarity,  but  they  keep  in  unison  in  this  great 
work,  like  a  great  choir  under  one  leader.  They  write  one 
story,  they  have  one  goal,  they  supplement  each  other, 
and  carry  through  the  same  scheme  or  plan  to  its  appro¬ 
priate  end. 

They  give  one  account  of  God,  one  account  of  the 
human  race,  one  account  of  the  human  heart,  one  account 
of  sin,  one  account  of  the  way  of  salvation,  one  account  of 
the  destiny  of  the  world  and  of  men,  one  account  of  human 
duty  and  obligation. 

With  all  the  differences  of  style  and  mind,  and  time 
and  station,  they  have  written  under  one  supervision. 

Genesis  and  Revelation  are  the  head  and  nut  that  bolt 
the  Bible  together. 

Genesis  shows  sin  in  the  beginning;  Revelation  shows 
salvation  in  the  end. 

Genesis  shows  man  driven  out;  Revelation  shows  him 
brought  back. 

Genesis  shows  a  closed  gate;  Revelation  a  city  open  on 
all  sides. 

Genesis  shows  exclusion  from  the  tree  of  life;  Reve¬ 
lation  shows  admission  to  the  tree  of  life. 

Genesis  gives  us  the  promise;  Revelation  shows  the 
promise  fulfilled. 

Genesis  shows  the  curse  on  sin;  Revelation  the  victory 
over  it. 

Genesis  shows  the  first  step;  Revelation  the  last  step 
in  the  process  of  redemption.  It  is  one  story. 

(g)  The  accuracy  of  the  book  witnesses  its  divine 
origin. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


21 


Read  the  ancient  cosmogonies ;  they  are  ridiculous  and 
impossible, — the  earth  hatched  out  of  an  egg  with  a  given 
number  of  years  for  incubation,  resting  on  a  tortoise,  the 
land  surrounded  by  seven  seas  of  salt  water,  juice  of  sugar 
cane,  spiritous  liquor,  clarified  butter,  sour  milk,  etc. 

Why  did  not  the  writer  of  Genesis  commit  the  same 
absurdities?  Why  is  the  account  of  Genesis  in  harmony 
with  the  science  of  the  present  day?  Will  any  modern 
man,  with  a  fling  at  Genesis,  undertake  to  write  the  scien¬ 
tific  formularies  of  an  age  3000  years  hence?  Why  is 
the  Bible  a  vade  mecum  for  all  ages,  races,  and  climes? 

To  compare  the  Bible  with  the  Vedas,  Avesta,  Koran, 
Book  of  Mormon  and  others,  is  to  magnify  its  inspiration. 
There  is  a  gulf  between  the  Bible  and  any  other  book 
which  no  man  can  fathom.  The  difference  is  caused  by 
its  origin. 

The  Bible  is  such  a  book  that  the  learned  never  get 
beyond  it.  Science  and  philosophy  have  not  proved  it  un¬ 
true;  but  are  indebted  to  it  for  their  own  progress.  World¬ 
wide  travel  never  discovers  any  inaccuracy  in  its  state¬ 
ments  ;  historical  investigation  has  borne  out  its  assertions ; 
and  archaological  discovery  confirms  it  day  by  day.  How 
shall  we  account  for  this  and  of  what  other  book  is  it  true  ? 

(h)  The  Bible  centers  in  one  person. 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  theme  from  beginning  to  end. 

Genesis  is  a  prelude  to  the  gospel.  He  who  in  Genesis  is 
promised  as  the  seed  of  the  woman  is  seen  in  Revelation 
sitting  on  the  great  white  throne  judging  all  the  races  of 
men.  The  covenants  of  the  Old  Testament  culminate  in 
the  covenant  of  the  New.  The  history  of  ancient  times 
was  selected  as  a  prelude  to  the  history  of  the  Son  of  Man. 
The  sacrifices  were  types  of  the  great  sacrifice  on  Calvary. 
The  prophets  spake  of  him;  the  psalmists  sang  of  him; 
the  hopes  of  saints  reached  out  to  his  coming.  The  Bible 
is  a  supernatural  witness  to  a  supernatural  Person  who 
was  to  come  and  who  did  come  to  save  the  world  from  sin 
and  death. 

An  Atheist  of  recent  j^ears  rightly  declared  that  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Bible  and  the  divine  origin  of  the 
world  must  stand  or  fall  together.  If  the  belief  in  the  di¬ 
vine  origin  of  the  world  is  rational,  the  belief  in  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Bible  is  equally  so.  Both  require  an  adequate 
cause  and  both  display  indisputable  design. 


22 


BIBLIOLOGY 


(i)  The  Bible  is  a  blessing-  and  comfort  to  man. 

It  satisfies  his  mind  as  to  the  why  and  wherefore  of 
the  universe.  It  presents  a  reasonable  philosophy  that  has 
the  merit  of  simplicity  and  appeals  to  the  common  sense 
of  mankind.  When  we  contrast  the  simple  and  sensible 
realism  of  the  Bible  with  the  speculative  productions  of 
men,  such  e.  g.  as  those  of  Fichte,  Schelling  and  Hegel, 
the  superiority  and  adaptability  of  the  former  appear 
strikingly  conspicuous.  It  also  tells  man  the  whence,  and 
what,  and  whither  of  himself  in  the  same  satisfying  man¬ 
ner,  and  solves  “the  lonely  mystery  of  existence”  as  un¬ 
belief  knows  it.  But  it  is  to  man’s  religious  needs  that 
the  Bible  makes  its  chief  appeal.  It  has  ever  exalted  his 
ideals;  it  has  raised  his  eyes  from  the  earth  and  earthly 
things  to  look  up  into  the  face  of  his  Father,  God.  It 
has  transformed  his  life  and  sanctified  his  nature.  It  has 
kept  him  sensible  of  the  distance  and  difference  between 
him  and  God  and  while  it  has  kept  him  humble,  it  has 
raised  his  aspirations  and  made  him  a  helper  and  uplifter 
of  his  fellow  men.  The  Bible  has  created  the  difference 
between  the  Christian  and  the  Savage.  It  has  taught  him 
that  he  is  a  citizen  of  a  heavenly  country,  while  he  is  a  pil¬ 
grim  here  below.  While  he  pursues  his  earthly  journey, 
he  is  looking  away  with  the  eye  of  faith  to  the  “city  that 
hath  foundations  whose  builder  and  maker  is  God.”  He  is 
not  overwhelmed  when  calamity  overtakes  him  and  earthly 
things  dissolve  and  dissappear.  In  the  evanescence  of  all 
earthly  things,  he  rests  upon  the  abiding  and  eternal.  The 
faith  that  the  Bible  generates  is  worth  more  to  mortal 
man  than  all  worldly  possessions  and  human  learning. 

Its  words  are  the  sweetest  that  pen  has  written  or 
tongue  has  spoken.  Its  principles  are  the  loftiest  that 
the  world  has  known.  In  its  influence  on  man,  it  trans¬ 
cends  all  other  agencies  ever  employed  for  his  benefit.  It 
has  hallowed  the  homes,  and  sanctified  the  hearts,  and 
soothed  the  sorrows,  and  dried  the  tears,  and  cheered  the 
sick,  and  strengthened  the  weak,  and  held  the  faith,  and 
inspired  the  devotion,  and  kindled  the  hopes,  and  conquered 
the  fears,  and  induced  the  joys,  and  impelled  the  songs, 
and  smoothed  the  dying  pillows,  and  given  victory  over 
death,  for  a  thousand  generations  that  believed  its  truth 
and  trusted  its  promises.  “The  word  of  the  Lord  is  tried,” 


BIBLIOLOGY 


23 


and  proved  true  by  the  experience  of  faithful  generations 
that  lived  in  the  light  of  it  and  died  in  the  faith  of  it, 
and  bade  posterity  to  “carry  on.” 

“The  Cotter’s  Saturday  Night,”  and  the  early  home  of 
John  G.  Paton  illustrate  what  blessing  the  Bible  brings 
where  it  is  reverently  believed  and  trusted.  The  experi¬ 
ence  of  a  great  multitude  of  pious  hearts  is  expressed 
in  the  following  verse: 

“One  of  the  sweet  old  chapters 
After  a  day  like  this; 

The  day  brought  tears  and  trouble, 

The  evening  brought  no  kiss. 

No  rest  in  the  arms  I  long  for; 

Rest  or  refuge  or  home; 

But  weary  and  heavy  laden, 

Unto  thy  Book  I  come.” 

The  Holy  Bible,  the  word  of  the  living  God,  is  the 
chief  comfort  of  man. 

5.  Modernism’s  View  of  the  Scriptures. 

According  to  Modernism  or  the  New  Theology,  we 

have  the  following  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures. 

(a)  The  Bible  is  not  a  revelation  from  God.  It  is 
not  supernaturally  given.  Its  origin  is  subjective,  not 
supernatural;  or  as  is  sometimes  said:  It  came  from  with¬ 
in,  not  down  from  above. 

(b)  It  has  no  more  authority  than  any  other  human 
literature. 

(c)  It  is  essentially  a  record  of  human  experience. 
It  expresses  the  convictions  which  men  have  entertained, 
in  various  ages,  on  the  religious  questions  that  concerned 
them.  In  certain  portions,  it  is  not  even  historical;  but 
transmits  the  stories  which  the  ancient  Hebrew  mind  has 
woven  around  certain  events,  or  explanations  which  the 
ancients  gave  to  certain  natural  phenomena. 

(d)  It  has  no  finality;  what  seemed  true  to  men  of 
one  age,  is  out  of  date  and  superseded  by  the  convictions 
of  another  age.  It  chiefly  witnesses  to  the  progress  of 
human  beliefs,  crude  in  the  earlier  ages,  but  advancing 
as  men  grew  wiser  by  their  experiences.  It  is  valuable 
as  a  history  of  religious  thought,  but  is  not  to  be  taken 
as  expressing  assured  and  unchanging  truth. 


24 


BIBLIOLOGY 


(e)  It  is  not  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice; 
but  men  may  find  many  good  things  in  it  which  commend 
themselves  to  human  judgment. 

(f)  Its  narratives  of  miracles  express  the  views 
which  a  crude  and  superstitious  age  entertained  in  regard 
to  certain  events. 

(g)  Its  prophecies  are  not  predictions,  but  express 
the  loftiest  aspirations  and  yearnings  of  idealists,  and 
which  in  process  of  time,  with  the  progress  of  the  human 
race,  came,  in  a  measure,  to  be  realized. 

(h)  The  Scriptures  are  not  essential  to  Christianity, 
since  Christianity  is  a  life  and  service  rather  than  a  belief  ;* 
but  they  are  valuable  as  a  record  of  human  progress  in 
religious  ideas.  Some  modernists  even  advise  dispensing 
with  the  Scriptures  as  a  basis  for  Christianity,  regarding 
Scriptural  conceptions  a  burden  to  belief  and  a  hindrance 
to  progress. 

(i)  The  sacrifices  and  burnt  offerings  of  the  Biblical 
narrative,  in  use  from  the  days  of  Adam,  and  incorporated 
by  Moses  into  Israel’s  religious  code  by  divine  sanction, 
are  regarded  as  the  dregs  of  paganism,  which  God  toler¬ 
ated  in  condescension  to  human  weakness ;  but  which 
through  the  progress  of  religious  ideas,  after  being  de¬ 
nounced  by  the  more  advanced  prophets,  were  at  length 
cast  into  the  discard  as  both  worthless  and  wicked. 

In  this  view  there  was  neither  type  nor  prophecy  in 
the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  Israel. 

(j)  In  modernism,  nothing  is  ever  fixed;  all  is  flux; 
they  call  it  “progress.” 

All  fixed  beliefs  are  stigmatised  as  “static,”  and 
humanity  is  ever  moving  onward,  sloughing  off  the  false 
and  puerile  past  and  advancing  in  ceaseless  change  to  the 
new  and  unknown. 

Evidently  the  multiplication  table  will  soon  be  out  of 
date,  and  foot  rules,  yardsticks,  and  pounds  avoirdupois 
will  all  change  their  values,  and  nothing  will  be  true  after 
it  is  a  decade  old. 

(k)  Statements  which  the  Scriptures  give  as  facts, 
are  regarded  as  merely  symbolical  and  not  literally  true; 
such  as  the  virgin  birth,  resurrection  and  ascension  of 
Christ,  and  his  coming  again. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


25 


6.  Answer  to  the  Modernistic  View  of  the  Bible. 

Modernism  destroys  the  Bible  as  a  trustworthy  wit¬ 
ness.  He  who  takes  the  Bible  at  its  face  value,  must  see 
that  it  teaches  the  fact  of  creation,  predictive  prophecy, 
the  Deity  of  Christ,  an  expiatory  and  vicarious  atonement, 
and  such  fundamental  doctrines.  The  modernist  destroys 
all  this  by  regarding  the  Bible  as  a  record  of  passing  o- 
pinions,  mostly  superseded  by  the  progress  of  human 
thought.  It  is  no  witness  to  truth,  supernaturally  given; 
but  only  to  what  men  thought  was  truth,  or  what  passed 
for  truth  in  their  day.  This  is  a  very  effective  way  of 
destroying  its  testimony. 

(a)  This  is  not  the  view  that  the  Bible  takes  of  it¬ 
self,  since  it  repeatedly  declares:  “Thus  saith  the  Lord.” 
The  modernistic  view  can  be  accepted  only  on  the  ground 
of  absolute  falsehood  on  the  part  of  the  writers,  or  a  mis¬ 
taken  conception  that  stops  little  short  of  falsehood.  Un¬ 
less  we  are  prepared  to  take  a  very  extreme  view  of  the 
veracity  of  the  writers,  we  cannot  accept  the  position  of 
modernism. 

(b)  This  is  not  the  view  of  Christ  who  said,  “Till 
heaven  and  earth  pass  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise 
pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled,”  and,  “The  Scripture 
cannot  be  broken.” 

(c)  This  has  not  been  the  view  of  the  Church 
through  the  ages,  nor  of  the  mass  of  devout  believers 
who  have  accepted  its  teachings  and  trusted  its  promises 
as  the  word  of  God. 

(d)  No  man  can  accept  such  a  view  who  gives  due 
weight  to  the  reasonableness  of  its  cosmogony;  to  the 
correspondence  of  type  and  antitype;  to  the  fact  of  its 
predictive  prophecy;  and  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ. 


(e)  Modernism  is  a  sikworm  religion  in  which  man 
weaves  his  salvation  out  of  himself. 


26 


BIBLIOLOGY 


7.  Summary  of  Section  I.  on  the  Bible  a  Revelation 
from  God. 

(1)  God’s  goodness  gives  an  antecedent  presumption. 

(2)  If  a  revelation  exists,  it  is  the  Bible. 

(a)  No  other  comparable. 

(b)  If  not  the  Bible,  there  is  none. 

(3)  The  Bible  trustworthy. 

(4)  Shows  its  divine  authorship. 

(a)  By  miracles. 

(b)  Reveals  what  only  God  can  know. 

(c)  Loftiest  moral  system. 

(d)  Power  over  world. 

(e)  Tells  what  man  needs  to  know. 

(f)  Harmony  of  contents. 

(g)  Accuracy. 

(h)  Centers  in  a  person. 

(i)  A  blessing  to  man. 

(5)  Modernism’s  view  of  Scriptures. 

(a)  Not  a  revelation. 

(b)  No  authority. 

(c)  Only  human  experience. 

(d)  No  finality. 

(e)  Not  infallible. 

(f)  Product  of  a  crude  age. 

(g)  Prophecy  not  predictive. 

(h)  Not  essential  to  Christianity. 

(i)  Sacrifices,  pagan. 

(j)  No  permanent  truth. 

(k)  Statements  symbolical. 

(6)  Answer  to  Modernism. 

(a)  Bible’s  view  of  itself. 

(b)  Christ’s  view. 

(c)  Church’s  view. 

(d)  Does  not  fit  the  facts. 

(e)  Is  too  subjective. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


27 


Section  II.  The  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

After  showing  that  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God 
it  may  seem  like  traversing  the  same  ground  to  show  its 
inspiration.  However,  the  subject  is  worthy  of  any  re¬ 
petition  that  may  occur.  Besides,  there  are  those  who  will 
concede  that  the  Bible  contains  a  revelation  and  yet  hold 
very  loose  views  as  to  inspiration.  It  is  important  to  have 
inspiration  clearly  defined,  fully  presented,  and  adequately 
maintained. 

The  word  inspiration,  is  not  defined  in  the  Scriptures; 
but  this  is  a  term,  the  usus  loquendi  of  which  in  theological 
terminology,  applies  and  is  limited  to  the  formation  of 
the  Scripture  text.  The  word  is  often  used  in  the  sense 
of  inciting  or  stimulating  the  thoughts  or  emotions;  but 
that  is  not  its  theological  usage. 

Even  if  the  Scriptures  were  not  inspired  they  would 
contain  momentous  truths  which  we  could  not  afford  to 
ignore.  Man’s  salvation  is  still  his  greatest  concern,  and 
Christ’s  finished  work  his  only  hope  whether  the  Scriptures 
are  inspired  or  not.  But  this  does  not  invalidate  the  fact 
nor  deny  the  need  of  inspiration.  The  fact  is  most  evident 
and  the  need  immeasurable. 

Prof.  Francis  L.  Patton  says:  “If  on  simple  historical 
testimony  it  can  be  proved  that  Jesus  wrought  miracles, 
uttered  prophecies,  and  proclaimed  his  divinity — if  it  can 
be  shown  that  he  was  crucified  to  redeem  sinners,  that 
he  rose  again  from  the  dead,  and  that  he  made  the  destiny 
of  men  to  hinge  on  their  acceptance  of  him  as  their  Sav¬ 
iour — then  whether  the  records  which  contain  these  truths 
be  inspired  or  not,  woe  unto  him  who  neglects  so  great 
salvation.” 

The  lack  of  inspiration  would  not  leave  man  irre¬ 
sponsible,  but  the  fact  of  it  gives  him  a  “sure  word  of 
prophecy.” 

Sometimes  we  speak  of  the  inspiration  of  the  writer, 
and  sometimes  of  the  inspiration  of  the  writing.  One 
is  the  agent,  the  other  is  the  effect. 

“All  Scripture  is  Theopneustos”  refers  to  the  writing. 

“Holy  men  of  God  spake”  refers  to  the  writer  or  speak¬ 
er. 

1.  Differing  Theories  of  Inspiration. 

(a)  No  inspiration.  The  Bible  but  a  human  book. 
Thus  the  Atheist,  Pantheist,  Deist  and  ordinary  unbeliever. 


28 


BIBLIOLOGY 


This  would  contradict  the  plain  statements  of  the 
Scriptures  and  destroy  their  trustworthiness  in  simple  mat¬ 
ters  of  fact. 

(b)  That  the  event  was  inspired  but  not  the  record 
of  the  event. 

This  is  a  loose  statement.  Many  events,  e.  g.  the 
temptation  of  our  first  parents,  the  slaughter  of  the  babes 
of  Bethlehem,  were  certainly  not  inspired  by  God;  but 
the  records  were.  Moreover  it  is  rather  an  arbitrary 
proceeding  to  admit  that  God  might  inspire  an  event  and 
deny  that  he  might  inspire  the  record  of  it. 

(c)  That  the  thought  was  inspired  but  not  the  words. 

Answer:  We  think  in  words.  Dr.  Shedd  says:  “An 
idea  is  an  internal  word.  A  word  is  an  external  idea.” 
The  Scriptures  recognize  this: 

Ps.  14:1,  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart. 

Lk.  3:8,  Begin  not  to  say  within  yourselves. 

The  Bible  always  refers  to  the  words  in  speaking  of 
inspiration.  Holy  men  SPAKE.  ALL  SCRIPTURE  etc. 

(d)  That  writers  were  preserved  from  error  in  mat¬ 
ters  necessary  to  salvation,  but  not  as  to  other  matters 
like  history,  chronology,  science,  etc. 

Answer:  It  is  impossible  to  tell  what  is  and  what  is 
not  necessary  to  salvation. 

If  the  history  is  false,  the  doctrine  cannot  be  true. 

If  the  gospels  are  mythical,  we  have  no  saviour. 

If  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  a  fancy,  our  faith  is 

vain. 

Such  vital  matters  as  the  incarnation,  atonement, 
salvation,  resurrection,  and  future  rewards  and  punish¬ 
ments  require  the  guidance  of  an  infallible  Spirit  to  avoid 
a  statement  of  them  that  would  be  misleading. 

(e)  Plenary  and  verbal  inspiration. 

Plenary  inspiration  means  that  the  Bible  is  inspired 
in  all  its  parts.  Christ  never  distinguishes  between  books 
as  to  their  divine  origin  and  authenticity,  but  applies  the 
term,  “word  of  God”  to  the  whole  canon  of  the  Old  Test¬ 
ament.  The  Apostles  do  the  same.  II  Tim.  3:16. 

Verbal  inspiration  means  that  in  the  making  of  the 
Scriptures  the  superintendence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  extended 
to  the  words. 

The  Scriptures  constantly  claim  that  their  words  were 


BIBLIOLOGY 


29 


given  or  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  2  Pet.  1:21,  Acts  4: 
25,  1  Cor.  2:18  etc.  See  below. 

The  Scriptures  assert  a  verbal  inspiration,  and  verbal 
inspiration  is  the  doctrine  of  the  church. 

(f)  Inspiration  and  Inerrancy. 

Does  inspiration  guarantee  inerrancy?  There  is  some 
controversy  over  this.  Inerrancy  does  not  mean  that  the 
writers  were  faultless  in  life,  but  preserved  from  error 
in  their  teaching.  They  themselves  may  have  had  wrong 
conceptions  about  many  things,  but  did  not  teach  them; 
e.  g.  as  to  earth,  stars,  natural  laws,  geography,  social  and 
political  life,  etc. 

Inerrancy  does  not  mean  that  a  wrong  interpretation 
could  not  be  put  on  the  text,  or  that  it  could  not  be  mis¬ 
understood. 

Inerrancy  does  not  deny  the  flexibility  of  language 
as  a  vehicle  of  communication.  It  is  often  difficult  to  con¬ 
vey  an  exact  statement  because  of  this  flexibility  of  lang¬ 
uage,  or  possible  variation  of  meaning  in  words. 

Inerrancy  means  that  the  truth  is  conveyed  in  words 
which,  understood  as  they  were  meant  to  be  understood, 
express  no  error. 

What  do  the  Scriptures  say  as  to  their  own  inerrancy? 

1st.  That  they  are  the  word  of  God,  and  God  can¬ 
not  err. 

2nd.  Matt.  5:18,  One  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise 
pass  from  the  law  etc. 

3rd.  Jno.  10:35,  The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  (as 
to  single  word.) 

4th.  Gal.  3:16,  Paul's  argument  turns  on  the  singular 
or  plural  number  of  a  word — seed. 

Men  who  deny  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  are  usual¬ 
ly  ready  to  trust  the  infallibility  of  their  own  opinion. 

In  discussing  this  question,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  Bible  uses  the  language  of  common  speech,  ac¬ 
curate  enough,  and  best  fitted  for  its  purpose;  and  further 
that  scientific  and  mathematical  terms  are  not  a  part  of 
its  lingo.  Also,  that  it  often  uses  round  numbers  in  es¬ 
timating  armies,  the  number  killed,  and  periods  of  years 
etc.  and  approximate  numbers  in  giving  the  time  of  day. 
Such  things  are  not  derogatory  to  the  Bible's  authentic¬ 
ity.  An  interesting  instance  is  cited  in  I  Ki.  7:23;  where 
we  read  that  the  molten  sea  was  ten  cubits  in  diameter 


30 


BIBLIOLOGY 


from  brim  to  brim,  while  a  line  of  thirty  cubits  compassed 
it  round  about.  Accordingly,  it  has  been  said  that  the 
Bible  makes  the  value  of  Pi  to  be  3,  instead  of  the  exact 
3.1416.  But  since  we  do  not  know  whether  the  compassing 
line  was  at  the  extremity  of  the  brim  or  underneath  the 
brim,  we  can  arrive  at  no  definite  conclusion;  and  should 
be  cautious  about  charging  the  writer  with  error.  It  is 
perfectly  evident  that  a  man’s  hat  band  is  smaller  than 
the  binding  on  the  brim;  and  everything  depends  on  where 
the  compassing  line  was  located. 

2.  Definition  of  Inspiration. 

Inspiration  is  the  divine  influence  exercised  on  the 
writers  of  the  Scriptures  to  preserve  them  from  error  in 
their  teaching. 

Inspiration  did  not  make  men  mere  machines;  was 
not  a  merely  mechanical  process ;  but  employed  their  know¬ 
ledge,  faculties,  style,  etc. 

Inspiration  is  not  mere  dictation ;  yet  some  things 
were  dictated,  e.  g.  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Lord’s 
Prayer,  plan  of  the  tabernacle  etc.  Inspiration  guided  the 
writers  in  collecting  and  expressing  what  God  wanted 
them  to  teach. 

There  is  a  difference  between  inspiration  and  revel¬ 
ation. 

Revelation  is  the  impartation  of  knowledge  by  God. 
Inspiration  is  God’s  directing  and  controlling  power  in 
gathering  and  recording  what  we  find  in  his  word. 

All  parts  of  the  Bible  are  inspired ;  but  not  all  revealed. 
Some  parts  of  the  Bible  are  records  of  events  which  needed 
not  to  be  supernaturally  revealed,  but  required  inspiration 
for  accurate  expression  and  record. 

3.  Proof  of  Inspiration  drawn  from  the  Scriptures. 

We  derive  our  doctrine  of  inspiration  from  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  Since  the  Scriptures  are  the  source  of  doctrine, 
they  are  the  source  of  this  doctrine  as  of  others. 

This  is  not  reasoning  in  a  circle.  We  are  sometimes 
accused  of  proving  inspiration  by  the  Bible  and  proving 
the  truth  of  the  Bible  by  inspiration,  and  thus  reasoning 
in  a  circle.  But  the  process  is  vastly  more  valid  than 
that.  It  proceeds  on  the  well  accepted  grounds  of  evi¬ 
dence.  First  prove  the  trustworthiness  of  the  witness, 
then  accept  his  testimony.  That  is  valid.  Now  the  trust¬ 
worthiness  of  the  Scriptures  is  established  in  a  dozen  ways, 


31 


bibliology 

and  having  established  their  trustworthiness,  or  the  valid¬ 
ity  of  their  testimony,  we  may  well  accept  what  they  say 
of  themselves.  It  is  important,  therefore,  to  ask,  what 
do  the  Scriptures  say  of  their  own  inspiration; — not  what 
this  or  that  man  may  think,  but  what  does  God,  in  the 
Scriptures  SAY. 

The  Scriptures  assert  it  of  themselves,  and  they  must 
either  be  believed  as  true  in  this  respect  or  rejected  in  all 
respects. 

(a)  The  Old  Testament  claim's  inspiration. 

Deut.  4:2.  Moses’  words  are  said  to  be  the  commands  of  God. 

Deut.  4:5.  I  have  taught  as  the  Lord  commanded  me. 

Deut.  6:1 — 2.  These  are  the  commandments  which  the  Lord 
God  commanded  to  teach. 

II  Sam.  23:2.  The  Spirit  of  God  spake  by  me  and  his  word 
was  in  my  tongue. 

Is.  1:10.  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord. 

Jer.  1:9.  Behold  I  have  put  my  words  into  thy  mouth. 

Jer.  1:2.  To  whom  the  word  of  the  Lord  came. 

Ezek.  3:1.  Son  of  man  eat  this  roll  and  go  speak  unto  Israel. 

Ezek.  3:4.  Son  of  man  go  get  thee  to  the  house  of  Israel 
and  speak  with  my  words  unto  them. 

Hos.  1:1.  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  unto  Hosea. 

Joel  1:1.  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to  Joel. 

Amos  1:3.  Thus  saith  the  Lord.;  2:1  Thus  saith  the  Lord. 

Amos  3:1.  Hear  the  word  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken. 

Ob.  1:1.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God. 

Micah  1:1.  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  unto  Micali. 

(b)  The  New  Testament  declares  the  inspiration  of 
the  Old  Testament. 

Lk.  1:70.  As  he  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets. 

Acts  4:25.  Who  (thru  the  Holy  Spirit)  by  the  mouth  of  thy 
servant  David  hath  said. 

Heb.  1:1.  God  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners 
spake  by  the  prophets. 

II  Tmothy  3:16.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God. 

I  Pet.  1:11.  Searching  what  the  Spirit  of  Christ  who  was  in 
them  did  signify. 

II  Pet.  1:21.  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the 
will  of  men;  but  holy  men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

(c)  The  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament. 

Inspiration  was  promised  to  the  Apostles;  and  accord¬ 
ingly  they  present  their  words  as  the  words  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Matt.  10:19.  It  shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour  what  ye  shall 
speak. 


32 


BIBLIOLOGY 


Jno.  14:26.  The  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  all  things  and 
bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto 
you. 

Jno.  15:26 — 27.  The  Spirit  of  truth  shall  testify  of  me,  and 
ye  shall  also  bear  witness  because  ye  have  been  with  me  from 
the  beginning. 

Jno.  16:13.  When  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide 
you  into  all  truth. 

Acts  2:33.  Having  received  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear. 

Acts  15:28.  For  it  seemed  good  to  us  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary  things. 

I  Thes.  1:5.  For  our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only, 
but  also  in  power  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  assurance. 

I  Cor.  2:13.  Which  things  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  which 
man’s  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth. 

II  Cor.  13:3.  Since  ye  seek  a  proof  of  Christ  speaking  in  me, 
I  will  not  spare. 

II  Pet.  3:16.  Puts  Paul’s  epistles  on  a  level  with  the  Old 
Testament. 

I  Thes.  2:13.  When  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye 
heard  of  us,  ye  received  it,  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  it 
is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God. 

I  Cor.  14:37.  The  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are  the  com¬ 
mandments  of  the  Lord. 

4.  Proof  of  Inspiration  from  general  consideration. 

(a)  The  trustworthiness  of  the  Scriptures  is  the 
foundation  stone  of  the  argument  for  inspiration.  It  can 
be  shown  that  the  Bible  is  historically  credible.  It  tells 
a  true  story,  and  the  true  story  is  told  by  honest  men. 
And  beyond  all  reasonable  controversy,  they  are  to  be  be¬ 
lieved. 

Therefore,  if  their  records  are  trustworthy,  if  we  can 
believe  what  they  say,  then  we  are  justified  in  believing 
what  they  say  about  their  inspiration.  Every  argument 
for  the  ordinary  credibility  of  the  Scriptures  is  an  argu¬ 
ment  for  the  credibility  of  their  claims  of  inspiration. 
Only  on  the  ground  that  the  Scriptures  are  unworthy  of 
credence,  can  we  disbelieve  their  claim  of  divine  inspiration. 
This  ordinary  credibility  leads  to  the  establishment  of  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration.  It  is  quite  legitimate  to  advance 
from  general  credibility  to  inspiration  and  from  inspir¬ 
ation  to  infallibility. 

The  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  necessarily  results 
from  their  authenticity.  There  is  no  other  alternative. 
If  what  they  relate  is  true  they  are  inspired.  If  they  were 
not  inspired  they  would  not  be  sincere;  but  they  are  sin¬ 
cere,  therefore  they  are  inspired. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


33 


(b)  Freedom  from  absurdities. 

How  comes  it  that  the  Scriptures  avoid  the  absurd¬ 
ities  of  their  contemporaries — the  Chinese,  the  Hindus,  the 
Persians,  the  Greek  philosophers  and  even  the  views  of 
early  and  medieval  Christians,  and  Mohammedans? 

Had  they  said  that  the  stars  feed  the  sun  with  their 
fires,  or  that  the  sun  had  only  borrowed  light,  or  like  the 
Greeks  that  the  sun  was  a  mass  of  iron  and  the  earth 
a  great  mountain,  or  had  they  taught  with  Aristotle  that 
the  heavens  were  a  solid  sphere  to  which  the  fixed  stars 
were  attached — had  they  taught  astrology  such  as  we  find 
in  Europe  in  recent  centuries,  what  would  have  been  said 
as  to  their  inspiration? 

Moses  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians, 
but  he  did  not  teach,  as  they,  that  sun,  stars,  and  elements 
were  endowed  with  intelligence. 

How  is  the  Bible  different  from  all  its  contemporaries  ? 
There  are  no  absurdities,  no  astrology  giving  the  stars 
power  over  our  lives  and  fortunes.  The  very  difference 
is  a  proof  of  inspiration. 

(c)  All  predictive  prophecy  whose  fulfillment  can  be 
recognized  is  proof  of  supernatural  guidance. 

(d)  All  expressions  that  transcend  the  age  in  which 
they  were  written  are  evidence  of  inspiration;  e.  g. 

Job  26:7.  He  stretcheth  out  the  north  over  the  empty  place 
and  hangeth  the  earth  upon  nothing. 

Ps.  135:7.  He  causeth  the  vapours  to  ascend  from  the  ends 
of  the  earth,  he  maketh  lightnings  for  the  rain. 

Eccles.  1:7.  All  the  rivers  run  into  the  sea;  yet  the  sea  is 
not  full;  unto  the  place  from  whence  the  rivers  come  thither  they 
return  again. 

Is.  40:22.  It  is  he  that  sitteth  upon  the  circle  of  the  earth, — 
that  stretcheth  out  the  heavens  as  a  curtain,  and  spreadeth  them 
out  as  a  tent  to  dwell  in. 

(e)  If  the  Scriptures  present  to  a  perishing  world 
a  divine  plan  of  salvation,  the  presumption  amounts  to  a 
moral  certainty  that  the  record  that  expresses  and  teaches 
that  plan  is  as  divine  as  the  plan  itself.  This  is  an  a  priori 
argument,  but  presents  a  fact  that  must  be  considered. 

(f)  Jesus  Christ  was  a  divine  Messiah.  He  fulfilled 
the  Scriptures  concerning  himself.  Was  a  divine  fulfil¬ 
ment  given  to  something  that  was  not  divine?  Or  shall 
we  not  say  that  the  protevangelium  and  the  fulfilment  were 
equally  from  God? 


34 


BIBLIOLOGY 


(g)  Words  of  the  Old  Testament  are  quoted  and  at¬ 
tributed  to  God. 

Acts  1:16.  This  Scripture  must  needs  have  been  fulfilled  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  mouth  of  David  spake. 

Heb.  1:8.  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith;  Thy  throne  O  God  is 
for  ever  and  ever. 

Heb.  3:7.  Wherefore,  as  the  Holy  Spirit  saith,  Today  if  ye 
will  hear  his  voice. 

Heb.  8:8.  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will 
make  a  new  covenant. 

Heb.  8:13.  In  that  he  saith,  A  new  covenant,  he  hath  made 
the  first  old. 

Heb.  10:15.  And  the  Holy  Spirit  also  bears  us  witness,  for 
after  he  had  said  etc. 

Following  this  statement,  there  is  a  long  quotation 
from  the  Old  Testament.  Prof.  Francis  L.  Patton  re¬ 
marks:  “Passages  are  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament  as 
predictions  verified  in  New  Testament  history,  the  rele¬ 
vancy  of  which  depends  upon  the  assumption  that  they  are 
correct — a  verbally  correct — report  of  divine  communica¬ 
tions.” 

(h)  The  unity  of  the  Scriptyres,  as  shown  above, 
is  evidence  of  divine  supervision.  The  Bible  tells  one 
story  ,  exhibits  one  plan,  opens  with  the  fact  of  a  ruined 
race,  and  the  promise  of  a  deliverer,  proceeds  to  trace  the 
plan  of  salvation  and  the  history  of  God’s  kingdom,  and 
comes  to  a  conclusion  that  is  absolutely  fitting  and  logical. 
The  obvious  conclusion  is  that  a  divine  superintendence 
wrought  out  the  plan  and  the  record  of  it;  every  design 
implies  a  designer;  and  the  design  in  the  Scriptures  must 
have  had  one  overruling  designing  mind. 

(i)  The  word  of  God  was  supreme  in  Israel. 

As  the  Scriptures  were  written  from  time  to  time, 
they  were  given  to  Israel  as  the  word  of  God,  and  of  su¬ 
preme  authority,  and  were  accepted  as  such.  Deut.  4:2 
and  18:15 — 20,  show  that  the  prophet  must  speak  what 
was  commanded  and  must  not  presumptuously  add  any¬ 
thing  of  himself.  Any  prophet  presuming  to  speak  what 
was  not  commanded  was  worthy  of  death.  Deut.  17 :8 — 20, 
shows  that  judges,  priests  and  kings  were  to  inquire  of 
the  law  and  interpret  the  law;  but  not  to  make  or  sup¬ 
plement  it.  The  king  was  required  to  have  the  written 
law  at  hand  as  a  perpetual  and  authoritative  guide. 

Israel,  accordingly,  was  required  to  obey  the  law  strict¬ 
ly,  and  not  to  decline  from  its  sentence  to  the  right  hand 


BIBLIOLOGY 


35 


nor  to  the  left.  Any  disregard  of  that  law  was  sin  that 
merited  retribution. 

That  the  written  word  was  supreme,  and  an  appeal 
to  it  final,  was  a  position  not  controverted  in  Israel  either 
by  disobedient  idolators  in  Old  Testament  times,  or  oppon¬ 
ents  of  Christ  in  New  Testament  times.  That  written 
law  was  God’s  law,  and  of  divine  authority,  whether 
obeyed  or  not.  Thus  from  the  earliest  days  of  Israel’s 
life,  the  word  of  the  prophet,  God’s  spokesman,  delivered 
as  God’s  word,  was  regarded  as  of  divine  force,  and  above 
all  question.  Josephus  bears  witness  as  follows:  “Never, 
although  many  ages  have  elapsed,  has  any  one  dared  either 
to  take  away  or  to  add,  or  to  transpose  in  these,  anything 
whatever;  for  it  is  with  all  the  Jews,  as  it  were  an  inborn 
conviction  from  their  very  earliest  infancy,  to  call  them 
God’s  teachings,  to  abide  in  them,  and  if  necessary,  to 
die  joyfully  in  maintaining  them.  They  are  given  to  us  by 
the  inspiration  that  comes  from  God.” 

(j)  The  Testimony  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Whoever  accepts  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  and  God  must 
accept  his  estimate  of  the  Scriptures.  Only  by  denying 
the  deity  of  Christ  can  one  dispute  the  value  of  his  test¬ 
imony.  What  he  says,  is  absolutely  final  for  every  man 
who  regards  him  as  God  and  Saviour.  The  question  of 
the  infallibility  and  perfection  of  the  Scriptures  is  involved 
in  the  deity  and  messiahship  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  the  word 
written  has  been  accepted  by  Jesus  Christ  as  God’s  word 
and  God’s  law  for  him, — if  he  accepted  and  obeyed  it  with¬ 
out  distinction  of  one  part  and  another  as  the  written 
law  of  God,  then  that  settles  the  matter  for  every  man 
who  accepts  Jesus  Christ  as  master  and  Lord. 

Christ  always  referred  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  word 
of  God. 

Matt.  22:31.  Have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto 
you  by  God? 

See  also  19:4—5;  Mk.  7:9,  10,  13. 

In  Mk.  12:36,  Christ  quotes  Psalm  110  and  attributes 
the  reference  to  God.  In  Christ’s  prayer,  Jno.  17:17,  he 
says  to  his  Father:  “Thy  word  is  truth.”  To  what  did 
he  refer?  Evident^  to  the  Scriptures.  See  also  Lk.  16: 
31  and  Lk.  24:25. 

It  is  preposterous  to  allege  that  Christ  merely  voiced 
the  sentiments  of  his  day, — that  if  not  ignorant  of  pre- 


36 


BIBLIOLOGY 


vailing  error,  he  simply  accomodated  his  teaching  to  cur¬ 
rent  beliefs. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  Christ  professed  a  knowledge 
and  authority  far  beyond  the  men  of  his  day.  That  claim 
not  only  embraced  the  past  but  the  future  as  well.  He 
could  speak  knowingly  of  Abraham  and  Moses,  and  just 
as  positively  of  the  judgment  day  and  the  scenes  beyond 
the  horizon  of  time.  Christ  did  not  trim  his  sails  to  suit 
the  elements  among  which  he  lived.  Scribe,  lawyer  and 
pharisee  knew  that  very  well.  He  never  hesitates  to  cor¬ 
rect  their  views  where  they  were  wrong.  He  points  out 
the  fallacy  of  many  rabbinical  teachings;  but  he  never  cor¬ 
rects  them  for  believing  that  the  Scriptures  were  divinely 
inspired  and  absolutely  authoritative. 

If  Peter  was  wrong  in  declaring  him  to  be  the  Son  of 
God,  he  should  have  disavowed  it  then  and  there.  And 
if  the  Jews  were  mistaken  in  regarding  the  Old  Testament 
as  the  word  of  God  and  of  supreme  authority,  he  should 
have  set  them  right;  for  he  said:  “To  this  end  was  I  born 
and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world  that  I  should 
bear  witness  unto  the  truth.” 

And  when  Christ  refers  to  the  Old  Testament  as  the 
law,  the  prophets^  and  the  psalms,  he  refers  to  a  canon 
that  was  complete  in  his  day.  And  there  is  no  question 
raised  in  the  New  Testament  as  to  the  authenticity,  or 
canonicity  of  any  part  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

(k)  Christ's  Appeal  to  the  Scriptures. 

It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  Christ  regarded  an 
appeal  to  the  Scriptures  as  final.  He  said  to  the  tempter: 
“It  is  written.”  That  settled  the  matter.  What  the 
Scriptures  said  could  not  be  controverted.  “It  is  written” 
(no  matter  in  what  part)  was  sufficient  authority  for  him. 
He  frequently  said  to  the  scribes  and  pharisees:  “Have 
ye  never  read?”  This  was  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures 
as  the  final  arbiter  that  settled  all  disputes. 

He  said  to  the  Sadducees:  “Ye  do  err  not  knowing 
the  Scriptures  nor  the  power  of  God.”  What  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  said  of  the  question  in  hand  was  the  last  word.  No 
need  of  any  other  appeal,  and  no  higher  appeal  could  be 
made.  Thus  we  see  that  Jesus  Christ  took  the  Scriptures 
as  the  law  of  his  life  and  the  supreme  test  of  human  con¬ 
duct.  What  Christ  did  and  said  all  must  accept  who  call 
him  master  and  Lord. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


37 


(l)  The  Prophets  did  not  always  understand  their 
own  writings.  Instead  of  their  own  minds  being  the  source 
from  which  they  drew  their  wisdom,  we  are  told  that  they 
themselves  “inquired  and  searched  diligently,  who  proph¬ 
esied  of  the  grace  that  should  come  unto  you,  search¬ 
ing  what,  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
which  was  in  them  did  signify  when  he  testified  before¬ 
hand  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that  should 
follow.”  And  so  it  was  that  in  answer  to  their  diligent 
search  and  inquiry,  “it  was  revealed  that  not  unto  them¬ 
selves  but  unto  us  they  did  minister  the  things  that  are 
now  reported  unto  you  by  them  that  have  preached  the 
gospel  unto  you  etc.” — 1  Pet.  1:11 — 12. 

Here  is  the  evidence  of  a  directing  mind  that  guided 
their  writings  to  an  end  beyond  their  own  times  and  be¬ 
yond  their  natural  source  of  information.  It  is  perfectly 
evident  that  the  whole  meaning  of  Scripture  is  not  always 
measured  by  the  conceptions  of  its  writers,  nor  by  the 
aspirations  of  themselves  or  the  age  in  which  they  lived. 
An  Over-mind  wrought  through  their  minds  and  wrote 
His  message  to  generations  then  unborn. 

(m)  The  Scriptures  were  delivered  by  divine  direction 
and  attested  by  ample  authority. 

Not  only  were  the  Scriptures  written  by  men  divinely 
directed,  but  they  were  delivered  as  God’s  word,  to  God’s 
people,  by  the  hand  of  one  commissioned  by  God  for  that 
purpose.  The  prophet  must  not  only  speak  or  write  what 
God  commanded;  but  deliver  it  as  God’s  message,  with  a 
“thus  saith  the  Lord.” 

Further,  the  writings  of  the  prophets  were  attested 
as  true  and  genuine  by  many  reliable  witnesses.  The  early 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament  were  approved  by  the  later 
prophets,  and  the  whole  Old  Testament  canon,  as  we  have 
it,  was  attested  by  Jesus  Christ  as  being  the  word  of  God 
and  possessing  divine  authority.  If  the  Old  Testament 
is  the  word  of  God  on  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  we 
shall  certainly  not  deny  an  equal  place  to  the  New  Test¬ 
ament  which  fulfills  the  Old.  Moreover  the  New  Test¬ 
ament  writers  vouch  for  each  other  and  thus  the  whole 
Scriptures  receive  approval  in  one  way  or  another. 


38 


BIBLIOLOGY 


5.  Specific  proof  for  Verbal  Inspiration. 

Is  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  verbal?  In  the 
production  of  the  Scriptures,  was  any  divine  influence  ex¬ 
erted  on  the  writers?  If  so,  did  the  divine  influence  ex¬ 
erted,  extend  to  the  words?  If  it  did,  then  we  have  verbal 
inspiration. 

It  is  possible  that  God  might  have  communicated  his 
will  to  men  and  left  them  to  their  unaided  powers  in  mak¬ 
ing  the  record  of  it.  That  is,  a  divine  communication  and 
a  human  expression.  Even  in  such  case  we  could  not  af¬ 
ford  to  ignore  the  message.  It  would  not  be  infallible, 
to  be  sure,  nor  so  perfect  by  far,  as  we  believe  our  Scrip¬ 
tures  to  be,  but  it  would  be  tremendously  important.  How¬ 
ever,  this  is  not  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  concerning 
themselves;  and  we  think  that  we  have  a  much  more  sure 
word  of  prophecy.  A  verbal  inspiration  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  church  and  of  the  Scriptures  themselves. 

(a)  The  antecedent  presumption. 

The  fact  that  the  Bible  is  God’s  message  raises  the 
strongest  presumption  that  it  is  infallible.  The  Bible  was 
meant  to  exhibit  God’s  plan  in  the  matter  of  human  sal¬ 
vation;  and  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  such  a  plan  would 
be  stated  in  a  manner  free  from  error.  We  can  approach 
this  subject  therefore  with  a  presumption  in  favor  of  a 
verbal  inspiration.  Such  a  presumption,  instead  of  being 
an  idle  fancy,  constitutes  one  of  the  strongest  convictions 
which  the  mind  can  entertain. 

(b)  But  further,  if  the  Bible  is  law  to  mankind,  it 
is  verbally  inspired. 

All  law  is  verbally  contained.  The  authority  of  the 
law  is  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  act.  The  authority 
of  a  law  cannot  be  divorced  from  its  words.  A  law  con¬ 
sists  of  words,  and  the  Scriptures,  as  God’s  law  to  man, 
consist  of  words.  Take  away  the  words  and  you  de¬ 
stroy  the  law.  We  cannot  separate  the  meaning  of  a  law 
from  the  words  that  express  it. 

What  does  a  court  do  in  enforcing  a  law?  Why  it 
interprets  and  applies  the  meaning  of  the  words  contained 
in  the  act.  Did  the  enactment  of  the  legislature  or  law¬ 
giver  have  no  effect  on  the  words  of  the  act?  It  produced 
the  words;  and  the  words  express  the  intent  of  the  legis¬ 
lative  body.  And  so  far  as  the  Scriptures  are  a  divine 
law  to  men,  that  law  is  expressed  in  the  words  in  which 


BIBLIOLOGY 


39 


they  are  written;  and  therefore  the  Scriptures  are  verb¬ 
ally  inspired. 

(c)  The  Scriptures  assert  it  of  themselves. 

No  one  who  reads  the  Scriptures  and  takes  them  at 
their  face  value,  can  fail  to  see  that  they  teach  a  verbal 
inspiration.  Unhappily,  many  men  form  their  ideas  of 
inspiration  without  asking  what  the  Scriptures  teach  on 
the  subject.  What  some  critic  thinks,  has  more  weight 
with  them  than  the  word  of  God.  With  them  man  is 
infallible  and  God  strangely  mistaken. 

Now  the  Scriptures  attribute  the  words  to  God. 

“All  Scripture,” — the  word  scripture  means  writing, 
and  writing  is  composed  of  words.  “Holy  men  of  God 
spake,”  to  speak  is  to  use  words. 

“Which  things  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  which  man’s 
wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth,” 
observe  the  reference  to  the  words. 

“When  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard 
of  us,  ye  received  it,  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  it 
is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God.” 

“God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners, 
spake  by  the  prophets.”  The  prophets  always  declare 
their  words  to  be  the  words  of  the  Lord. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  is  that  of  verbal  in¬ 
spiration.  That  must  satisfy  any  man  who  accepts  the 
Scriptures  as  authoritative. 

Verbal  inspiration  is  not  identical  with  dictation,  al¬ 
though  dictation  is  not  a  word  to  frighten  us.  Some 
things  in  the  Scriptures  were  dictated,  e.  g.  The  Ten  Com¬ 
mandments,  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  the  directions  for  making 
the  tabernacle  etc.  The  Bible  is  as  truly  the  word  of  God 
as  if  it  had  been  dictated.  However  we  could  wish  that 
those  who  stigmatize  verbal  inspiration  as  “dictation”  and 
“mechanical  operation,”  would  be  either  honest  enough 
or  accurate  enough  to  state  the  doctrine  correctly. 

6.  Objections  to  Verbal  Inspiration. 

(a)  It  is  often  objected  that  there  is  a  human  el¬ 
ement  observable  in  the  Bible  and  therefore  it  is  not  divine¬ 
ly  inspired. 

The  objection  is  a  non  sequiter.  Because  we  can  ex¬ 
plain  certain  earthly  phenomena  by  natural  laws,  that  does 
not  empty  them  of  God.  And  because  we  can  discover  the 
human  elements  in  the  Scriptures,  that  does  not  explain 


40  BIBLIOLOGY 

away  their  inspiration.  For  example,  it  is  idle  to  deny 
verbal  inspiration  on  the  ground  of  differences  of  style, 
on  the  part  of  the  writers.  If  God  could  use  men  to  write 
his  word  he  could  use  their  style. 

(b)  Objection  is  sometimes  made  that  if  verbal  in¬ 
spiration  holds,  then  must  the  Bible  use  the  exact  and 
technical  language  of  modern  science. 

But  the  Bible  uses  the  language  of  common  speech, 
exact  enough,  and  understood  by  all  as  the  technical  terms 
would  not  be.  At  any  rate,  who  has  guaranteed  that  the 
technical  language  of  science  will  never  change? 

Sometimes  it  may  be  necessary  to  modify  our  inter¬ 
pretations  in  the  light  of  scientific  discovery.  Science 
therefore,  ought  to  be  and  has  been  an  exegetical  help. 
But  it  is  asking  too  much  when  we  are  required  to  ac¬ 
commodate  our  interpretation  of  Scripture  to  a  theory 
which  is  still  a  matter  of  debate  among  scientific  men, 
as  for  example,  the  Darwinian  hypothesis. 

(c)  It  is  further  objected:  What  value  attaches  to 
the  inspiration  of  the  original  manuscripts  since  we  do 
not  possess  them;  but  depend  upon  translations? 

This  objection  does  not  refute  the  fact  of  inspiration 
but  questions  the  advantage  of  it.  But  even  if  the  trans¬ 
lation  is  a  human  work,  is  the  divinity  of  the  original 
of  no  consequence?  Are  we  not  far  more  sure  of  a  divine 
communication  in  the  translation  of  an  inspired  original, 
than  if  the  original  were  a  merely  human  product?  If 
the  original  be  full  of  errors,  there  could  be  no  possibil¬ 
ity  of  ever  correcting  one  of  them;  but  if  the  original  is 
perfect  and  some  errors  creep  into  the  translations,  these 
can  be  detected  and  corrected  by  comparison.  If  our 
Scriptures  are  translations  of  an  infallible  original,  the 
possibility  of  error  is  reduced  to  a  minimum,  and  a  con¬ 
stantly  vanishing  minimum  by  comparison  of  translations. 
But  if  we  have  only  translations  of  an  original  that  was 
not  inspired  at  all,  and  was  in  no  sense  infallible  to  begin 
with,  and  doubtful  as  to  genuineness,  then  the  possibility 
of  error  is  at  the  maximum. 

The  advantage  of  an  inspired  original  is  plainly  seen. 
It  is  a  matter  of  tremendous  importance  what  the  original 
was,  for  that  determines  whether  we  have  any  word  of 
God  or  not. 


41 


BIBLIOLOGY 

An  old  writer  illustrates  thus:  “If  your  father,  dying 
in  India,  wrote  or  dictated  a  letter  to  you  in  Bengalee, 
you  may  be  reasonably  sure  of  its  meaning  by  a  trans¬ 
lation;  and  absolutely  certain  by  comparing  the  transla¬ 
tion  of  several  different  men;  each  translation  reducing 
any  obscurity  to  a  minimum.  But,  on  the  contrary,  if 
the  letter  were  not  from  your  father  himself,  but  from 
some  stranger  who  says  he  has  only  reproduced  your  fath¬ 
er’s  thoughts  as  best  he  could,  then  you  would  find  no 
limits  to  your  possible  doubts.” 

The  advantage  of  a  genuine  original  is  evident.  It 
is  possible  to  correct  a  faulty  translation;  but  impossible 
to  correct  a  faulty  original. 

(d)  Another  objection  is  that  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  often  quoted  the  Septuagint;  and  no  translation 
can  claim  inspiration. 

It  appears  that  the  New  Testament  writers  quoted 
the  Septuagint  when  assured  of  its  correctness;  but  when 
the  Septuagint  did  not  meet  their  requirements,  they  fell 
back  upon  the  Hebrew,  translating  it  more  correctly;  or 
if  desirous  of  stressing  some  peculiar  sense  for  which  they 
adduced  their  reference,  they  paraphrased  it  to  make  clear 
their  point.  But  this  in  no  way  compromises  the  inspir¬ 
ation  either  of  the  Old  or  New  Testaments. 

(e)  Some  make  the  various  readings  an  objection 
to  verbal  inspiration.  Certainly  the  various  readings  do 
not  touch  the  fact  of  the  original.  If  God  gave  us  an 
inspired  original,  nothing  can  undo  that  first  act.  But 
the  various  readings,  though  numerous,  make  no  vital 
change  in  the  text,  which  has  been,  as  the  Confession  of 
Faith  says,  “by  God’s  singular  care  and  providence  kept 
pure  in  all  ages.” 

The  Jews  counted  the  number  of  words  and  letters. 
They  could  tell  how  many  times  aleph  or  beth  ocurred  in 
the  Bible;  which  was  the  middle  letter  in  the  Pentateuch; 
or  in  any  particular  book.  With  such  care,  has  the  text 
been  handed  down. 

A  manuscript  brought  from  the  Jews  of  Malabar  and 
deposited  at  Cambridge,  showed  very  few  and  insignificant 
variations  between  the  eastern  and  western  texts. 


42 


BIBLIOLOGY 


(f)  Objection  of  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce. 

Prof.  Sayce  says :  “If  an  infallible  revelation  were  made 
by  God  to  man,  it  would  cease  to  be  infallible  as  soon  as 
it  reached  him.  In  passing  through  the  human  mind,  it 
would  lose  its  infallibility  and  become  finite  and  relative. 
However  infallible  and  inerrant  the  original  communica¬ 
tion  may  have  been,  it  must  cease  to  be  so  in  the  very 
act  of  becoming  comprehensible  to  man.  All  human  know¬ 
ledge  is  relative;  the  absolute  truth  can  be  known  only  to 
God.” 

“In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  Europ¬ 
ean  reformers  gave  up  the  infallibility  of  the  church  but 
fell  back  on  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible.  What  reason 
have  we  to  believe  that  the  Bible  is  inerrant  and  therefore 
infallible  ?  Those  who  maintained  its  infallibility  could 
not  appeal  to  the  concensus  of  the  church,  for  they  had 
rejected  the  infallibility  of  the  church.  Nor  could  they 
appeal  to  reason,  as  that  would  place  reason  on  a  higher 
level  than  the  book  whose  divine  authority  they  sought 
to  guarantee.  If,  again,  it  was  urged  that  the  Bible  was 
its  own  witness,  the  answer  was  that  different  individuals 
and  denominations  interpreted  it  differently,  and  what  the 
ordinary  Christian  wanted  to  know,  was  which  of  these 
interpretations  he  should  regard  as  divinely  authoritative 
and  infallible.” 

To  Prof.  Sayce’s  first  sentence  we  may  enter  a  cate¬ 
gorical  denial. 

It  simply  asserts  that  the  mind  of  man  cannot  enter¬ 
tain  infallible  truth;  that  in  order  to  the  reception  of  in¬ 
fallible  truth  by  man,  he  must  become  God.  Prof.  Sayce 
confuses  infallibility  with  infinity,  as  seen  in  his  third 
sentence.  It  is  true  that  an  infallible  mind  must  be  an 
infinite  mind;  but  it  is  not  true  that  infallible  truth  is  in¬ 
communicable  to  a  finite  mind.  In  that  case  no  man  could 
learn  the  multiplication  table.  There  is  a  distinction  be¬ 
tween  all  truth  and  that  which  is  absolutely  true,  and  Prof. 
Sayce  obliterates  that  distinction. 

His  position  is  open  to  the  inference  that  the  human 
mind  cannot  entertain  any  truth.  He  means  to  say  that 
unless  a  man  knows  all  truth,  he  cannot  know  that  anything 
is  true;  for  what  he  thinks  is  true  may  be  rendered  untrue 
by  that  which  he  does  not  know.  This  is  his  relativity 
of  knowledge.  Whatever  is  true  is  absolutely  true.  If 


BIBLIOLOGY 


43 


man  cannot  entertain  what  is  absolutely  true,  then  he  can¬ 
not  entertain  any  truth. 

That  all  knowledge  is  relative  is  doubtful;  but  it  de¬ 
pends  on  the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  used.  Prof.  Sayce 
has  not  defined  his  notion  of  relativity;  but  in  the  ordinary 
philosophical  sense  it  concerns  the  process  of  arriving  at 
truth  rather  than  the  validity  of  the  truth  discovered. 

That  I  know  myself  different  from  you  does  not  com¬ 
promise  the  certainty  of  my  knowledge  of  myself.  Nor 
does  all  the  knowledge  of  myself  depend  on  the  similarity 
or  difference  between  you  and  me.  Prof.  Sayce’s  argument 
is  a  denial  of  the  possibility  of  inspiration.  It  assumes 
that  the  infinite  God  is  not  infinite  enough  to  enable  man 
to  write  what  is  infallibly  true. 

That  different  individuals  and  denominations  interpret 
the  Bible  differently  does  not  affect  the  fact  of  inspiration. 
The  facts  of  the  earth  and  the  heavens  are  not  destroyed 
by  men’s  different  interpretations  of  them.  If  nothing  is 
reliable  about  which  there  is  diversity  of  opinion,  there  will 
be  little  admissable  in  all  the  world. 

However,  Prof.  Sayce  admits  the  general  trustworth¬ 
iness  of  the  Bible.  He  says:  “The  Bible,  in  fact,  is  suffic¬ 
iently  trustworthy  on  the  human  side  to  prevent  us  from 
doubting  its  authority  in  matters  spiritual.” 

If  his  admission  is  true,  then  the  logical  conclusion  is 
that  the  Bible  is  sufficiently  trustworthy  to  be  believed 
when  it  says  hundreds  of  times:  “Thus  saith  the  Lord;” — 
when  it  says:  “Not  in  words  which  man’s  wisdom  teacheth, 
but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth;” — when  it  says:  “All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God;” — when  it  says: 
“The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken.”  If  we  can  believe  the 
Scriptures  at  all,  we  can  believe  what  they  say  of  them¬ 
selves. 

Prof.  Sayce  puts  Biblical  inspiration  on  a  level  with 
the  Hindu  doctrine  of  inspiration  which  assumes  that  man 
must  be  God  in  order  to  receive  a  revelation  from  God. 
Hence  they  regarded  their  sages  and  religious  teachers 
not  only  as  the  mouth-pieces  of  God,  but  as  being  them¬ 
selves  divine.  We  are  not  to  press  Biblical  doctrines  into 
the  mold  of  Hindu  conceptions.  The  study  of  comparative 
religions  has  its  limitations. 


44 


BIBLIOLOGY 


(g)  Objection  of  Lyman  Abbott. 

The  late  Lyman  Abbott,  a  typical  modernist,  says  of 
the  Bible:  “All  its  various  books  were  written  by  men 
who  believed  in  God,  or  at  least  in  the  divine  life,  and 
wrote  to  tell  their  readers  their  religious  experience.  It 
is  not  an  infallible  book  about  religion;  it  is  a  library  of 
religion — that  is,  of  religious  experience.  Indeed  a  really 
infallible  book  is  inconceivable,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
language  is  not  an  infallible  method  of  communicating 
ideas.” 

1st.  Dr.  Abbott  seems  to  doubt  that  some  of  the 
Biblical  writers  believed  in  God,  some  perhaps  only  in  a 
divine  life.  That  is,  they  may  have  been  pantheists  rather 
than  theists.  We  would  have  been  obliged  to  Dr.  Abbott 
if  he  had  named  the  man  or  men,  and  allowed  an  inductive 
investigation. 

Dr.  Abbott  has  apparently  followed  Schleiermacher  too 
closely,  who,  professing  to  believe  in  a  divine  life,  left  the 
personality  of  God  in  doubt.  This  is  simply  the  dregs  of 
Pantheism. 

2nd.  Observe  the  false  conception  of  the  Scriptures 
as  a  mere  record  of  religious  experience,  that  the  writers 
“wrote  to  tell  their  readers  their  religious  experience.” 
That  is  not  what  the  Bible  claims  itself  to  be.  That  is 
not  what  the  writers  say  of  themselves.  They  distinctly 
declare:  “Thus  saith  the  Lord.”  “The  word  of  the  Lord 
that  came  to”  such  and  such  a  one.  The  description  does 
not  fit  the  contents  of  the  Bible.  How  does  it  fit  the  por¬ 
tions  of  history,  the  ten  commandments,  the  typology,  the 
prophecies,  the  sermon  on  the  mount?  In  fact  it  fits  but 
few  portions  of  the  Book.  Is  God’s  plan  of  salvation  only 
a  deduction  or  conclusion  from  human  experience  that  has 
no  more  force  than  the  consensus  of  human  opinion,  and 
a  changing  opinion  at  that? 

There  is  religious  experience  in  the  Scriptures,  to  be 
sure;  but  there  is  far  more,  and  chiefly  more.  This  is 
the  view  of  modernism  and  it  is  essentially  false.  It  robs 
the  Scriptures  of  their  chief  value. 

3rd.  Lie  asserts  that  the  Bible  is  not  an  infallible 
book  “because  language  is  not  an  infallible  method  of  com¬ 
municating  ideas.” 


BIBLIOLOGY 


45 


There  is  some  flexibility  in  language.  Usage  may  al¬ 
low  several  shades  of  meaning  to  a  word.  One  may  mis¬ 
take  an  author’s  intention,  or  one  may  wrest  a  meaning 
from  language  not  intended  by  the  writer.  Men  may  err 
in  translating  from  one  language  to  another.  There  is 
room  for  error  to  creep  in  through  transmission.  But  is 
it  true  that  language  cannot  express  infallible  truth?  If 
it  can  express  truth  at  all,  it  can  express  infallible  truth. 
Would  Lyman  Abbott  question  the  truth  of  the  multiplica¬ 
tion  table  because  it  is  expressed  in  language?  Can  God 
not  say  what  he  means  in  human  speech  ?  That  is  what 
the  inspirationist  holds,  namely  that  what  God  has  said, 
he  has  infallibly  said. 

The  real  difficulty  of  Lyman  Abbott  is  not  that  God 
cannot  express  himself  infallibly  or  did  not;  but  that  men 
may  not  infallibly  apprehend  his  meaning,  especially  when 
transmitted  from  language  to  language.  Lyman  Abbott 
is  looking  at  the  human  fallibility;  not  at  the  divine  in¬ 
fallibility.  But  if  God  spoke  to  men  at  all,  it  is  a  priori 
certain  that  he  must  speak  infallible  truth.  And  if  God 
has  given  an  infallible  message,  there  is  every  hope  that 
man  will  apprehend  its  essential  truth,  but  if  God  has 
given  a  message  that  is  false  or  faulty  or  mistaken,  there 
is  no  hope  whatever  that  man  can  arrive  at  the  truth, 
for  the  errors  of  the  original  can  never  be  corrected.  The 
infallibility  of  the  message  rests  upon  the  veracity  of  a 
holy  God. 


46 


BIBLIOLOGY 


7.  Summary  of  Section  II  on  Inspiration. 

(1)  Theories. 

(a)  None. 

(b)  Event  but  not  record. 

(c)  Thought,  but  not  words. 

(d)  Saving  truth,  but  not  history,  science,  etc. 

(e)  Plenary  and  verbal. 

(f)  Inerrancy. 

(2)  Definition. 

(3)  Proof  drawn  from  Scriptures. 

(a)  0.  T. 

(b)  Testimony  to  0.  T. 

(c)  N.  T. 

(4)  Proof  from  general  considerations. 

(a)  Trustworthiness. 

(b)  Free  from  absurdities. 

(c)  Prophecy. 

(d)  Transcendent  knowledge. 

(e)  Salvation  involved. 

(f)  Divine  fulfilment. 

(g)  0.  T.  attributed  to  God. 

(h)  Unity. 

(i)  Supreme  in  Israel. 

(j)  Testimony  of  Christ. 

(k)  Christ’s  appeal  to  Scripture. 

(l)  Above  comprehension  of  prophets. 

(m)  Delivered  as  authoritative. 

(5)  Specific  proof  for  verbal  inspiration. 

(a)  Antecedent  presumption. 

(b)  The  Bible  is  law. 

(c)  Scriptures  assert  it. 

(6)  Objections. 

(a)  A  human  element. 

(b)  Requires  scientific  language. 

(c)  Original  manuscripts  lost. 

(d)  Septuagint  quoted. 

(e)  Various  readings. 

(f)  A.  H.  Sayce. 

(g)  Lyman  Abbott. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


47 


Section  III.  The  Authority  of  the  Scriptures. 

(a)  Protestantism  has  always  stood  for  the  author¬ 
ity  of  the  Scriptures.  If  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of 
God,  they  are  of  absolute  authority.  There  is  no  appeal 
from  the  word  of  God  to  any  higher  court.  All  appeal 
from  the  Scriptures  to  the  church,  or  tradition,  or  reason, 
or  public  sentiment  is  illogical  and  destructive. 

I  Jno.  5:9.  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of 
God  is  greater. 

I  Thess.  2:13.  When  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye 
heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the  word  of  man,  but,  as  it  is 
indeed,  the  word  of  God. 

(b)  Romanists  exalt  the  church  above  the  Scriptures, 
and  claim  an  infallible  church.  They  criticise  Protestants 
for  taking  authority  from  the  church  and  placing  it  in  a 
book. 

The  testimony  of  the  church  is  valuable  as  to  canon- 
icity,  in  determining  what  is  Scripture,  but  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  is  not  derived  from  the  church. 

A  man  may  be  a  witness  to  my  claim,  without  my 
deriving  that  claim  from  him. 

(c)  Rationalists  make  reason  the  supreme  authority. 

Schleiermacher  based  his  theology  on  the  feelings. 
Dorner  on  experience.  Ritschl  on  the  congruity  of  experi¬ 
ence  and  revelation. 

Rationalism  began  by  seeking  a  rational  demonstration 
for  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  and  ended  by  repudiat¬ 
ing  all  the  doctrines  that  rested  on  revelation;  such  as 
the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Virgin  Birth,  etc. 

(d)  Experience. 

The  extreme  subjectivism  of  modernistic  thought 
makes  experience  the  supreme  authority  and  “the  fount¬ 
ain  of  doctrine,”  (E.  Hermann’s  review  of  Eucken)  ;  so 
Modernism  in  general. 

Experience  is  neither  the  “ex  cathedra”  of  authority 
nor  the  fountain  of  doctrine. 

Experience  is  valuable  as  confirmatory  evidence  of  the 
doctrines  of  grace;  but  is  neither  source  nor  authority. 

Experience  is  the  human  side  of  redemption;  it  is 
effect,  not  cause ;  therefore  not  the  fountain  but  the  stream. 

Experience  is  subject  to  the  vagaries  of  erratic 
thought  and  predilection;  it  is  therefore  not  always  re¬ 
liable  in  itself. 


48 


BIBLIOLOGY 


> 


Experience  must  be  interpreted  and  expressed  in  form¬ 
ulas  of  belief,  and  these  subject  to  the  mistakes  of  human 
understanding. 

Perhaps  every  religious  fraud  in  the  history  of  the 
world  has  based  his  claims  on  his  experience.  It  is  the 
plea  of  fanatics. 

Experience  can  furnish  no  historical  data;  and  Christ¬ 
ianity  is  a  historical  religion.  Experience  can  tell  us  noth¬ 
ing  of  the  Trinity,  Incarnation,  Crucifixion,  and  Resurrect¬ 
ion  of  Christ,  nor  any  other  historical  event  that  lies  at 
the  basis  of  our  faith. 

It  is  equally  incapable  in  the  doctrines  of  the  future. 
It  can  tell  us  nothing  of  the  triumphs  of  the  kingdom,  of 
the  conversion  of  the  world,  of  the  destiny  of  souls,  of 
the  fate  of  the  world,  of  Christ’s  coming  and  general  judg¬ 
ment. 

Experience  must  be  compared  with,  and  checked  up  by, 
the  written  word  to  guarantee  its  validity,  and  guard  a- 
gainst  error. 

To  exalt  experience  into  a  source  of  authority  and 
fountain  of  doctrine  is  peculiarly  superficial. 


Section  IV.  Completeness  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  Scriptures  are  sufficiently  complete.  All  things 
needful  for  salvation  and  life  are  contained  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  or  readily  deduced  therefrom.  No  new  revelations 
are  necessary  like  those  of  Swedenborg  and  the  Mormons. 
Tradition  is  not  on  a  level  with  the  Bible. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  go  into  all  the  details  of  life; 
but  in  these  we  may  be  guided  by  general  principles. 

Some  say:  “What  is  not  commanded  is  forbidden,” — 
better  say:  What  is  not  commanded  cannot  be  enjoined. 


Section  V.  Perspicuity  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  Scriptures  are  sufficiently  clear.  They  may  be 
read  by  the  unlearned  man,  and  are  designed  for  personal 
use. 

(a)  Romanists  deny  this  and  claim  that  men  must 
not  interpret  for  themselves,  but  accept  what  the  church 
declares  to  be  the  sense. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


49 


(b)  Protestants  open  the  Bible  to  all,  but  admit  the 
benefit  of  scholarship  and  progress  in  accurate  interpre¬ 
tation. 

The  Protestant  position  is  best;  because: — 

The  Scriptures  are  addressed  to  all  men. 

We  are  commanded  to  search  the  Scriptures. 

The  practice  of  the  Apostolic  age  confirms  it.  Note 
the  Bereans  and  that  Timothy  knew  the  Scriptures  from 
a  child. 

Wherever  the  Scriptures  are  read,  the  best  type  of 
Christian  life  prevails. 


Section  VI.  The  Text  of  the  Scriptures. 

1.  The  original  manuscripts  in  Hebrew  and  Greek 
were  those  immediately  inspired,  and  of  which  authenticity 
and  inerrancy  are  affirmed. 

The  Scriptures  have  come  down  to  us  in  manuscripts 
of  the  original  languages,  in  quotations  of  early  writers, 
and  in  translations  into  other  languages. 

The  text  is  singularly,  or  at  least  comparatively,  pure. 

Some  alterations  and  mistakes  of  copyists  have  occured. 

Our  difficulties  are  chiefly  due  to  these  mistakes  of 
transmission,  and  failure  to  understand  idioms  and  idiosyn¬ 
crasies  of  other  ages,  and  to  render  them  properly. 

The  oldest  extant  Hebrew  manuscripts  date  from  the 
ninth  or  tenth  century  A.  D.  The  oldest  Greek  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  New  Testament  are  from  the  third  or  fourth 
century.  This  is  not  unusual.  It  is  said  that  there  are 
no  manuscripts  of  Cicero,  Caesar,  Tacitus,  and  Josephus 
within  eight  hundred- years  of  their  time. 

2.  The  Genuineness  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  most  recent  and  most  thorough  investigation  of 
the  text  of  the  Scriptures  entirely  vindicate  the  trust¬ 
worthiness  of  the  record. 

Prof.  Robert  Dick  Wilson,  of  Princeton  Theological 
Seminary,  perhaps  the  greatest  living  orientalist,  says: 
“I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  no  one  knows  enough 
to  assail  the  truthfulness  of  the  Old  Testament.  When¬ 
ever  there  is  sufficient  documentary  evidence  to  make  an 
investigation,  the  statements  of  the  Bible,  in  the  original 
texts,  have  stood  the  test.” 


50 


BIBLIOLOGY 


The  genuineness  of  the  Old  Testament  books  has  been 
the  sport  of  the  Higher  Criticism  for  a  generation  or  more. 
The  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  that  assigned  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  to  a  score  of  different  writers  scattered  through 
various  ages,  some  post  exilic,  has  had  its  day.  It  is  ap¬ 
parently  losing  its  hold,  yet  persists  somewhat  where  men, 
trained  in  it,  have  not  been  able  to  dismiss  their  early 
convictions ;  or  manifests  a  post  mortem  life  like  the  caudal 
appendages  of  the  reptile  tribe.  It  has  been  sufficiently 
answered  by  Professors  Alfred  Cave,  William  Henry  Green, 
James  Orr,  Robert  Dick  Wilson,  S.  I.  Curtiss,  G.  Lansing, 
Mr.  Harold  Wiener  and  others. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that: 

(a)  The  Egyptian  words  indicate  the  days  of  Moses 
and  not  the  exile. 

(b)  The  account  of  the  flood  is  found  as  a  whole 
in  other  languages  that  antedate  the  days  of  Moses. 

(c)  The  directions  for  putting  up,  taking  down,  or 
removing  the  tabernacle  with  courses  of  men  set  apart 
for  the  work,  could  hardly  issue  five  hundred  or  one  thous¬ 
and  years  after  the  tabernacle  had  ceased  to  exist. 

(d)  All  the  coloring  suits  Mosaic  times  and  not  post 
exilic  times. 

(e)  The  argument  from  language  was  based  on  an 
insufficient  induction. 

(f)  The  key  verse  Ex.  6:3  was  entirely  misconstrued. 

A  full  refutation  cannot  be  undertaken  here,  but  since 
the  days  of  S.  R.  Driver,  its  last  great  advocate,  much 
has  been  done  to  discredit  its  pretensions. 

The  Scriptures  as  they  stand,  are  more  intelligible 
and  present  fewer  difficulties  than  any  reconstructions  of 
them  by  such  critics  as  Wellhausen  and  Driver  for  the  Old 
Testament,  and  Strauss  and  Bauer  for  the  New. 

3.  Genuineness  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  doctrines  of  the  church  are  drawn  from  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  Our  appeal  is  to  the  written  word.  The  greatest 
importance  therefore  attaches  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
records.  Does  our  New  Testament  proceed  from  the  times 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  and  from  the  men  whose  names 
they  bear? 


BIBLIOLOGY 


51 


The  unbelieving  schools  have  taught  that  our  records 
are  so  late  as  to  be  untrustworthy;  that  some  of  them 
were  not  written  till  hundreds  of  years  after  the  Apostles' 
times.  But  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case?  Origin  was 
born  185  A.  D.  Four  volumes  of  his  works  have  been 
preserved,  written  we  may  suppose  about  220.  In  these 
four  volumes  he  quotes  from  Mat.  1352  times;  Mark  195; 
Luke  649;  John  775;  Acts  147;  Romans  731;  Cor.  859; 
Gal.  131;  Ephes.  135;  Phil.  68;  Col.  99;  Thes.  84;  Tim.  147; 
Ti.  19;  Rev.  60.  In  all  more  than  5000  quotations  from 
the  27  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  therefore  certain  that  the  New  Testament  was  in 
existence  in  that  day  and  evidently  long  before,  as  they 
were  well  known  writings  and  quoted  as  authority.  That 
brings  us  back  certainly  to  the  year  200.  Can  we  get 
farther  back?  Well,  Tatian  was  a  writer  of  the  second 
century.  He  died  170.  He  prepared  what  is  called:  “The 
Diatessaron,”  or  a  harmony  of  the  gospels;  recognizing 
the  four  accounts  of  Christ’s  life  and  piecing  them  to¬ 
gether.  That  was  before  170. 

Then  Polycarp,  the  martyr,  who  died  165,  quotes  the 
gospels  though  not  with  verbal  exactness.  This  witness 
to  their  existence  brings  us  nearly  to  150.  But  farther 
back  was  Justin  Martyr.  He  wrote  two  apologies  as  early 
as  139;  in  which  he  quotes  largely  and  accurately  from 
Matthew,  Luke  and  John.  Therefore  they  must  have  exist¬ 
ed  prior  to  139.  Aristides  was  a  philosopher  at  Athens 
and  addressed  an  apology  to  the  emperor  Hadrian  in  125 
which  was  recovered  in  1889.  He  does  not  quote  from 
the  New  Testament  but,  quite  as  gratifying,  he  gives  a 
summary  of  Christian  doctrine,  including  the  Divinity, 
Incarnation,  Virgin  Birth,  Resurrection  and  Ascension  of 
Christ;  and  says  that  it  is  taught  in  the  gospel,  where 
men  can  read  it  for  themselves. 

Again,  early  in  the  second  century,  there  were  some 
gnostic  heretics,  and  one  Marcion,  who  accepted  the  gospels 
in  a  heretical  sense,  which  proves  that  they  must  have 
come  down  from  long  before  that;  for  heretics  and  ortho¬ 
dox  would  scarcely  adopt  the  same  books  after  their  con¬ 
troversy  had  arisen. 

Now  we  have  gotten  back  to  the  early  years  of  the 
second  century,  and  find  these  books  already  recognized 
as  accepted  authority.  How  much  farther  can  we  go? 
Ignatius  died  115.  His  works  are  dated  before  110.  He 


52 


BIBLIOLOGY 


was  a  pupil  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  speaks  of  the  gospel, 
which  he  calls:  “the  flesh  of  Christ,”  and  classes  it  with 
the  Old  Testament  prophets.  He  also  quotes  quite  ac¬ 
curately  Luke  24:39. 

This  bears  witness  that  our  sacred  writings  came  down 
from  the  first  century,  snce  they  were  a  long  preserved 
memory  of  an  old  man  in  110  A.  D.  Clement,  who  may 
have  been  the  same  Clement  which  Paul  mentions  in  Phil. 
4:3,  (so  Origen,  Eusebius  and  Jerome)  quotes  Luke  17:1,2. 
The  date  assigned  to  his  first  epistle  is  about  95,  though 
some  say  64  to  68. 

Another  work,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  is  included 
in  one  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
as  if  it  were  a  canonical  book.  This  epistle  bears  witness 
to  the  existence  of  the  New  Testament  by  quoting  Matt. 
22:14.  The  Encyclopedia  Biblica  puts  the  date  of  Barnabas 
before  100.  The  epistle  enjoyed  great  popularity  in  the 
second  century,  and  takes  the  part  of  Paul  against  the 
Judaizers,  with  whom  Paul  had  so  much  contention,  and 
is  thoroughly  versed  in  the  Pauline  positions,  which  would 
indicate  a  very  early  date.  Many  of  the  early  fathers 
accepted  it  as  a  genuine  writing  of  Barnabas,  though  not 
canonical.  Later  critics  have  raised  some  doubts,  whether 
it  was  by  Barnabas  the  companion  of  Paul  or  some  other 
Barnabas.  If  by  the  Barnabas  of  the  New  Testament, 
then  we  have  a  witness  that  dates  back  to  the  early  church 
at  Jerusalem;  for  Barnabas  was  one  who  laid  his  money 
at  the  Apostles’  feet  just  after  Pentecost,  and  afterwards 
traveled  with  Paul  on  his  missionary  journey  about  the 
very  time  that  Paul  was  fighting  those  Judaizers,  about 
whom  the  epistle  is  so  full. 

If  that  epistle  is  by  Barnabas,  then  we  have  a  test¬ 
imony  that  goes  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
Church;  and  if  not  by  the  Barnabas  we  know  in  the  New 
Testament,  it  still  is  an  early  work  and  confirms  the  test¬ 
imony  that  we  have  cited  before. 

From  this  line  of  evidence  it  is  clear  that  the  New 
Testament  is  traced  back  to  the  close  of  the  first  century 
and  was  then  being  referred  to  as  something  settled  and 
authoritative.  And  it  is  furthermore  safe  to  say  that  the 
New  Testament  writings  are  the  best  authenticated  of  all 
ancient  writings. 

And  here  are  the  books  in  our  hands  that  have  come 
down  to  us  through  the  centuries,  and  they  are  witnesses; 


BIBLIOLOGY 


53 


their  word  is  just  as  much  to  be  believed  as  any  testimony 
in  the  world.  A  writing  or  even  a  tradition  that  goes  back 
to  the  very  events  is  quite  as  reliable  as  the  speculation 
of  a  man  who  was  born  the  day  before  yesterday. 

4.  Were  the  Apostles  deceivers?  Did  they  write 
what  they  knew  was  false?  Granted  that  the  books  are 
genuine ;  yet  is  there  any  chance  that  we  have  been  imposed 
on  by  men  who  wrote  what  they  knew  was  not  true  ? 
What  is  the  likelihood? 

(a)  What  had  they  to  gain?  What  was  their  fate? 

They  were  nearly  all  martyrs;  they  sealed  their  testimony 
with  their  blood.  Since  the  world  began,  was  it  never 
heard  that  a  man  gave  his  life  for  a  lie,  when  he  could 
save  it  by  telling  the  truth. 

The  Apostles  do  not  exhibit  the  character  of  deceivers. 
They  seem  to  be  honest  men  telling  a  true  story.  More¬ 
over,  would  they  utter  such  appalling  judgments  upon 
falsehood  and  falsifiers  if  they  were  guilty  of  it  themselves  ? 
“All  liars  shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake  that  burneth 
with  fire  and  brimstone.” 

(b)  But  suppose  they  were  deceived, — good  and 
honest  men,  but  led  astray  in  the  conception  of  facts. 

Well,  who  would  deceive  them?  The  Jews?  No. 
The  Romans?  No.  Jesus  Christ?  No.  Besides,  they 
were  slow  to  be  convinced.  They  believed  because  the 
proof  was  indubitable.  And  if  they  were  deceived,  we 
have  a  further  dilemma,  that  Christianity  and  all  its  power 
and  effects  in  the  world  are  due  to  mistake,  deception, 
and  falsehood.  It  is  not  rational  to  suppose  that  the  world 
has  been  regenerated  by  a  lie.  The  unbeliever  in  Christ’s 
resurrection  must  explain  Christianity  on  the  ground  of 
a  dead  Christ.  He  has  a  hopeless  task. 

Fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion,  Peter  stood  up  in 
Jerusalem  and  declared  that  they  had  crucified  the  Lord 
of  Glory,  but  that  he  was  risen  from  the  dead.  If  it  had 
not  been  true  they  could  have  gone  to  the  tomb  and  ex¬ 
hibited  the  dead  body.  But  the  thousands  that  heard  the 
story  believed  it;  and  so  believed  that  they  accepted  Jesus 
Christ  for  Lord  and  Saviour. 

Christianity  is  rationally  defensible.  The  results  of 
historical  inquiry  validate  the  Scriptures.  We  have  not 
followed  cunningly  devised  fables. 


54 


BIBLIOLOGY 


The  post-Reformation  rationalism  was  defeated  by 
patient  study.  The  Teubingen  School  of  Strauss  and  Bauer 
reduced  our  gospels  to  myth  and  legend.  But  it  died  an 
early  death.  Every  day  drives  new  nails  into  the  coffin- 
lid  of  the  Teubingen  theology,  and  there  is  scarce  one 
now  so  poor  as  to  do  it  reverence.  Sir  William  Ramsay, 
at  first  held  strongly  to  the  Teubingen  position  that  Acts 
was  written  in  the  second  century;  but  after  studying  the 
record  on  the  scenes  of  Paul’s  travels,  he  was'  convinced 
that  Acts  belonged  to  the  first  century  and  that  Luke  was 
a  trustworthy  historian  of  the  first  rank. 

Harnack,  with  a  bias  against  traditional  views,  came 
by  minute  linguistic  and  historical  studies  to  assign  Acts 
to  the  period  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  See 
“Date  of  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels”  page  116. — Harnack. 

Ritschlianism  was  a  revolt  against  the  mythical  theory 
of  Strauss,  and  took  its  stand  on  the  Scriptures  as  the 
source  of  our  knowledge  of  Christian  truth.  However, 
it  gives  no  proper  authority  to  the  written  word  but  sub¬ 
jects  it  to  the  evaluating  judgment  of  the  human  mind, 
and  defines  Scriptural  and  theological  terms  in  a  way  of 
its  own.  Modernism  is  only  a  second  edition  of  Ritsch¬ 
lianism. 

The  rationalism  of  today  will  vanish  like  the  ration¬ 
alism  of  old  by  a  really  rational  study  of  the  records  and 
a  fair  interpretation  of  them.  The  Bible  is  an  anvil  that 
has  worn  out  many  hammers  and  is  destined  to  wear  out 
some  more. 


BIBLIOLOGY 


55 


Chapter  II.  The  Rule  of  Faith. 


Section  I.  Rationalists  make  reason  the  rule  of  faith. 

They  repudiate  both  the  inspiration  and  authority  of 
the  Scriptures. 


Section  II.  The  Roman  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith. 

(a)  Includes  the  Apocrypha  in  the  canon. 

(b)  As  the  Scriptures  are  considered  incomplete, 
tradition  becomes  a  second  authority,  or  the  complement 
of  the  Scriptures. 

(c)  As  the  Scriptures  are  considered  obscure,  the 
church  claims  to  be  the  infallible  interpreter. 

(d)  The  Latin  Vulgate  is  the  authoritative  text 
authorized  by  the  church. 


Section  III.  The  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism,  Question  2.  What  rule  hath 
God  given  to  direct  us  etc.  The  word  of  God,  which  is 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
is  the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy 
him. 


(b)  The  canon  is  established  as  follows: — 

As  to  the  Old  Testament  the  books  contained  in  our 
Old  Testament  and  these  only  were  the  sacred  books  of 
the  Jews. 

Christ  and  his  Apostles  quoted  and  gave  their  sanc¬ 
tion  to  all  the  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  word 
of  God. 

As  to  the  New  Testament,  the  books  now  contained 
in  our  New  Testament  are  accepted  on  the  testimony  of 
the  early  fathers  and  councils  that  they  proceeded  from 
the  Apostles,  or  those  associated  with  them. 


56 


BIBLIOLOGY 


(c)  As  to  the  Apocrypha,  it  is  rejected, 

Because  it  was  not  included  in  the  Jewish  canon,  and 
not  written  in  Hebrew. 

Because  never  quoted  or  referred  to  by  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  as  a  part  of  the  holy  Scriptures. 

Because  the  contents  are  not  such  as  to  justify  a 
claim  of  inspiration,  either  as  to  historical  truthfulness, 
harmony  with  other  Scriptures,  or  as  a  moral  standard. 

(d)  Relation  of  Reason  to  Revelation. 

Neither  religion  nor  revelation  is  contrary  to  reason, 
we  are  not  asked  to  believe  the  impossible  or  the  con¬ 
tradictory. 

Reason  means  more  than  mere  reasoning  or  the  work¬ 
ing  out  of  a  syllogistic  demonstration.  Reason  means  the 
whole  cognitive  faculty  or  power  of  the  mind  to  know. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  repudiate  reason,  but  ever  ap¬ 
peal  to  it. 

Reason  is  therefore  necessary  as  a  primary  condition 
of  knowledge. 

Reason  must  apprehend  a  revelation,  examine  its 
evidences,  and  judge  of  its  credibility. 

Revelation  does  not  derive  its  authority  from  reason 
but  presents  itself  to  reason  for  reception  and  understand¬ 
ing. 

Reason  is  essential  to  deduce  from  revelation  necessary 
inferences  and  conclusions,  and  apply  them  to  practical 
ends. 

Revelation  may  disclose  what  the  human  mind  could 
not  discover  e.  g.  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  that  for 
which  it  can  assign  no  reason. 

Revelation  may  be  incomprehensible  to  some  or  all 
finite  minds  and  yet  true.  Comprehension  is  not  the  test 
of  truth.  What  is  comprehensible  to  one  mind  may  be 
incomprehensible  to  another.  The  babe  cannot  understand 
Geometry  nor  the  finite  mind  the  infinite  God  in  all  his 
being  and  all  his  ways. 

Incomprehensible  and  contradictory  are  not  equivalent 
terms. 

In  short,  reason  must  apprehend,  examine,  judge,  re¬ 
ceive,  and  use  revelation. 


PART  SECOND,  THEOLOGY  PROPER. 

Index  Page. 

Chapter  I.  Can  God  be  Known? 


Section 

I. 

The  Bible  declaration. 

Section 

II. 

Sir  Wm.  Hamilton’s  teaching. 

Section 

III. 

Distinction  between  apprehension 

comprehension. 

Section 

IV. 

Can  God  be  defined? 

Section 

V. 

Is  belief  in  God  intuitive? 

Chapter  II. 

Proofs  for  the  Existence  of  God. 

Section 

I. 

Can  God’s  existence  be  proved? 

Section 

II. 

How  much  proof  is  necessary? 

Section 

III. 

Arguments  for  God’s  existence. 

Chapter  III. 

Anti-Theistic  Theories. 

Section 

I. 

Atheism. 

Section 

II. 

Polytheism. 

Section 

III. 

Hylozoism. 

Section 

IV. 

Materialism. 

Section 

V. 

Pantheism. 

Chapter  IV. 

Anti-Christian  Theories. 

Section 

I. 

Deism. 

Section 

II. 

Rationalism. 

Section 

III. 

Christian  Science. 

Section 

IV. 

Pessimism. 

Section 

V. 

A  finite  God. 

—57— 


Index  Page. 


Chapter  V. 

The  Nature  of  God. 

Section 

I. 

The  oneness  of  God. 

Section 

II. 

The  personality  of  God. 

Section 

III. 

Substance  and  attributes  of  God. 

Section 

IV. 

Transcendence  and  immanence  of  God. 

Section 

V. 

A  trinity  of  persons. 

Chapter  VI. 

The  Decrees  of  God. 

Section 

I. 

Purpose  of  God. 

Section 

II. 

Classification  of  decrees. 

Section 

III. 

Events  embraced. 

Section 

IV. 

Order  of  decrees. 

Section 

V. 

God’s  decree  renders  certain  whatever 

is  decreed. 

Section 

VI. 

God’s  decree  makes  foreknowledge  pos¬ 

sible. 

Section 

VII. 

The  decrees  and  free  agency. 

Section  VIII. 

The  doctrine  of  election. 

Chapter  VII. 

The  Works  of  God. 

Section 

I. 

Creation. 

Section 

Providence. 

Section 

III. 

Miracles. 

Appendix  A.  The  System  of  Kant.  (At  the  end  of  the 
volume.) 

Appendix  B.  A  Summary  of  Ritschlianism.  (At  the  end 
of  the  volume.) 


—58— 


PART  SECOND,  THEOLOGY  PROPER. 

Chapter  I.  Can  God  be  Known? 

Section  I.  The  Bible  declares: — 

Jno.  17:3.  This  is  life  eternal  to  know  God,  etc. 

Isa.  11:9.  The  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord. 

The  manifestation  of  God  in  nature,  his  revelation  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  his  incarnation  in  Jesus  Christ  assure 
us  that  God  can  be  known. 

Section  II.  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton  taught  that  God  could 
not  be  known  because  he  is  the  Absolute  and  the  Abso¬ 
lute  has  no  relation  to  anything  else,  and  therefore  un¬ 
knowable.  Knowledge  would  imply  a  relation  and  the 
Absolute  has  no  relation. 

But  his  definition  of  the  Absolute  was  wrong.  The 
Absolute  is  not  that  which  has  no  relation  to  any  other 
thing;  but  that  which  has  no  necessary  relation. 

He  further  taught  that  God  could  not  be  known  be¬ 
cause  he  is  the  Infinite  and  the  infinite  is  the  illimitable 
and  the  illimitable  is  the  unknowable: — that  the  infinite 
is  the  all  and  therefore  there  is  no  distinction  between 
subject  and  object.  Knowledge  would  imply  such  a  dis¬ 
tinction  and  therefore  destroy  his  infinity.  A  knowledge 
of  the  infinite  would  divide  between  the  knower  and  the 
known  and  therefore  the  known  would  not  be  infinite. 

This  again  is  a  wrong  conception  of  the  infinite.  The 
infinite  is  not  the  all. 

This  doctrine  has  been  termed  Agnosticism.  It  had 
its  rise  in  the  philosophy  of  Kant,  characterized  in  some 
respects  the  Transcendentalists,  found  expression  in 
Hume,  Hamilton,  Mansel  and  Huxley  and  came  to  cul¬ 
mination  in  Herbert  Spencer. 

Section  III.  We  must  distinguish  between  apprehen¬ 
sion  and  comprehension. 

We  can  know  that  God  is,  without  knowing  all  he  is. 

We  can  touch  the  earth  while  not  able  to  embrace  it 
in  our  arms. 

The  child  can  know  God  while  the  philosopher  can¬ 
not  find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection. 


—59 


60 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Section  IV.  Can  God  be  defined?  Can  we  put  God 
into  definition? 

If  by  “define”  we  mean  to  limit,  we  cannot  define 
God.  But  we  can  point  out  those  characteristics  which 
mark  his  being  and  thus  make  a  definition  of  God. 

The  best  definition  is  Shorter  Catechism  4,  God  is  a 
Spirit,  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable  in  his  being, 
wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth. 


Section  V.  Is  belief  in  the  existence  of  God  an  in¬ 
tuitive  belief? 

The  editorial  page  of  The  Presbyterian  for  Aug.  31, 
1922,  offered  the  following:  “The  rational  man  has  certain 
so-called  innate  ideas,  which  he  cannot  be  taught  and  can¬ 
not  learn,  but  which  his  rational  faculties  recognize  direct¬ 
ly,  and  without  which  faculties  and  ideas  his  rationality 
would  cease.  There  are  seven  of  these  inherent  funda¬ 
mental  ideas.  They  are:  number,  space,  time,  cause  and 
effect,  personality,  right  and  wrong,  and  God.  Where 
ever  and  whenever  man  is  found,  he  has  every  one  of  these 
ideas,  and  that  without  learning  and  without  teachings. 
Should  a  man  or  a  race  be  found  without  any  one  of  these 
ideas,  such  a  man  or  such  a  race  would  be  defective,  idiotic. 
Strive  as  he  will,  no  normal  man  can  get  rid  of  the  idea 
of  God’s  existence.  He  might  as  well  try  to  get  rid  of  the 
idea  of  number,  cause  and  effect,  or  right  and  wrong.  The 
Scriptures  confirm  this.  Paul  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans 
says:  “That  which  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest  in 
them;  for  God  has  showed  it  unto  them.” 

This  puts  our  belief  in  God  on  the  same  basis  as  our 
belief  in  number,  space,  time,  cause,  etc.,  that  is  to  say, 
an  intuitive  belief. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century  a  set  of  articles 
appeared  in  a  Scotch  magazine  in  which  was  presented 
a  vigorous  defense  of  the  intuitive  character  of  our  know¬ 
ledge  of  God. 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  stands  definitely  on  the  side  of 
an  intuitional  knowledge  of  God. 

If  memory  serves  us  rightly,  Prof.  Francis  L.  Patton 
did  not  take  this  view,  but  regarded  this  universal  con¬ 
viction  as  due  to  a  rapid  inference  from  the  facts  of  the 
world  and  from  facts  of  our  own  consciousness. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


61 


However,  Dr.  Patton  remarks:  ‘The  idea  of  God  may 
be  God’s  testimony  to  his  own  existence.  May  we  not 
believe  that  it  is  through  the  Spirit  of  God  within,  and 
not  merely  by  arguments  without,  that  we  derive  our  first 
belief  in  God?” 

Prof.  Robert  Flint,  than  whom  there  is  no  greater 
human  authority  on  theological  questions,  takes  decided 
stand  against  the  intuitive  nature  of  our  belief  in  the 
Divine  existence. 

The  marks  of  intuition  are  three;  viz.  Universality, 
Necessity,  and  Self-evidence.  Whatever  bears  these  three 
marks  may  be  accepted  as  an  intuition.  Is  the  knowledge 
of  God  at  once  a  universal,  a  necessary,  and  a  self-evident 
truth?  The  intuitionalists  strive  to  answer  this  question 
affirmatively.  We  may  admit  that  the  knowledge  of  God 
is  all  but  universal. 

That  it  is  a  necessity  in  the  sense  that  we  cannot 
believe  the  opposite  may  be  doubted;  that  it  is  self-evident 
admits  of  question. 

That  which  is  self-evident  needs  no  proof.  That  a 
whole  is  greater  than  a  part  is  self-evident  ;  it  is  so  neces¬ 
sary  a  conclusion  that  no  one  can  believe  the  opposite. 
Is  our  knowledge  of  God  of  this  character?  Is  it  marked 
by  necessity  and  self-evidence? 

The  reasons  against  the  intuitive  character  of  this 
belief  are: 

1.  Our  idea  of  God  is  a  complex  idea  embracing  sub¬ 
stance,  attributes,  world  relations,  etc.  An  intuition  is 
not  thus  complex  or  resolvable  into  parts;  an  intuition 
cannot  be  analysed  nor  has  it  constituent  ideas  in  its  make¬ 
up. 

The  intuitionalists,  however,  confine  their  claims  to 
a  simple  idea  of  God  not  to  a  complex. 

2.  If  the  knowledge  of  God  were  intuitional,  all  effort 
to  prove  the  existence  of  God  would  be  superfluous.  An 
intuition  needs  no  proof. 

3.  If  the  knowledge  of  God  were  intuitive,  there 
should  not  be  found  one  sane  man  who  doubts  it,  much 
less  great  bodies  of  men  whose  ideas  of  God  are  perverted 
into  idolatry  and  such  beliefs. 


62 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


The  truth  is  that  our  ideas  of  God  are  founded  in 
part  upon  our  intuitions,  and  they  are  so  strong  and  evi¬ 
dent  that  we  scarcely  distinguish  between  our  intuitions 
and  the  necessary  inference  from  them.  The  practical 
universality  of  belief  in  God  is  due  to  the  fact  of  the 
intuitions  innate  in  every  man.  The  conclusions  from  them 
are  so  inescapable,  that  it  is  irrational  to  deny  them.  The 
idea  of  cause  and  effect  is  intuitive;  but  when  we  rise 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  world  must  have  had  a  cause, 
or  that  we  must  have  had  a  cause,  it  is  rather  an  inference 
from  the  intuition  than  the  intuition  itself. 

Thus  our  conclusions  partake  of  the  certainty  of  the 
bases  on  which  they  rest,  and  because  involved  in  so  much 
that  is  intuitional,  seem  intuitive  themselves. 

But  when  we  consider  the  immediate  impact  of  the 
Divine  nature  upon  the  human,  and  the  immediate  response 
of  the  human  to  the  divine,  we  are  reaching  a  source  of 
conviction  that  leaves  nothing  lacking  from  the  standpoint 
of  immediateness;  and  whether  you  call  it  revelation  or 
intuition,  it  may  be  so  coterminous  with  our  being  as  to 
present  the  marks  of  innate  conviction. 


Chapter  II.  Proofs  for  the  Existence  of  God. 


Section  I.  Can  God’s  existence  be  proved? 

Distinguish  between  proof  and  mathematical  demon¬ 
stration. 

The  proof  of  God’s  existence  is  not  the  proof  of  a 
mathematical  equation;  but  the  proof  of  cumulative  evi¬ 
dence,  such  as  is  recognized  in  every  courtroom  in  the 
world. 

It  is  proof  that  carries  conviction  because  of  its  ration¬ 
al  evidence. 


Section  II.  How  much  proof  is  necessary? 

A  little  proof  may  show  that  ,  there  is  a  God,  while 
no  amount  of  proof  that  man  can  gather  can  ever  prove 
there  is  no  God. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


63 


The  imprint  of  a  bird’s  foot  in  a  rock  would  prove  that 
sometime  a  bird  had  visited  the  Atlantic  seaboard.  But 
before  one  could  say  that  no  bird  had  ever  been  here,  he 
must  know  the  whole  history  of  the  coast  since  life  began 
on  the  globe. 

A  little  evidence  may  show  that  there  is  a  God;  but 
before  any  man  can  say  that  there  is  no  God,  he  must 
analyze  all  the  matter  in  the  universe,  he  must  track  down 
all  forces,  mechanical,  electrical,  vital,  mental  and  spirit¬ 
ual, — he  must  hold  converse  with  all  spirits  and  understand 
them  thoroughly,  he  must  be  in  all  points  of  space  at 
every  moment  of  time  lest  God  somewhere  and  somehow 
eludes  his  notice. 

He  must  be  omnipotent,  omnipresent  and  eternal,  in 
fact  he  must  himself  be  God  before  he  can  dogmatically 
affirm  that  there  is  no  God. 

Belief  in  a  personal  God,  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of 
the  universe,  is  called  Theism. 


Section  III.  Arguments  for  the  existence  of  God. 

1.  The  Ontological  Argument.  Ontos  logos. 

(a)  The  Ontological  Argument  runs  thus: — the  hu¬ 
man  mind  possesses  the  idea  of  an  absolutely  perfect  being. 
But  the  most  perfect  being  must  have  necessary  existence, 
and  necessary  existence  requires  actual  existence.  A  con¬ 
tingent  being  may  or  may  not  exist;  but  the  most  perfect 
being  must  have  actual  existence. 

For  an  extensive  discussion  of  this  argument,  and 
refutation  of  Gaunilo’s  objection,  see  Dogmatic  Theology, 
Shedd,  Vol.  I,  page  222  ff. 

(b)  The  Ontological  Argument  as  stated  by  Samuel 
Clarke. 

“It  is  certain  that  something  has  existed  from  ail 
eternity.  Absolute  nonentity  is  inconceivable.  Whatever 
has  eternally  existed  is  self-existent,  and  whatever  is  self- 
existent  is  necessarily  existent,  and  whatever  is  necessarily 
existent  cannot  be  conceived  as  non-existent. 

The  material  world  cannot  be  the  “something”  that 
has  eternally  existed,  because  we  can  conceive  of  its  non¬ 
entity.  Therefore,  the  “something”  which  has  eternally 
existed  is  God.” 


64 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


This  argument  does  not  aim  to  arrive  at  its  conclusion 
by  the  law  of  cause  and  effect,  the  effect  assuring  the  cause, 
though  that  is  a  proper  argument  in  its  place  but  it  arrives 
at  its  conclusion  from  the  necessity  of  the  case;  the  prem¬ 
ises,  which  are  indisputable,  involve  the  conclusion.  Some¬ 
thing  exists,  must  necessarily  have  existed  from  eternity. 
From  necessary  existence  actual  existence  cannot  be  safely 
abstracted.  Perhaps  the  Pantheist  could  agree  thus  far; 
but  the  perfection  necessary  to  our  eternal  being  would 
rule  out  the  Pantheist. 

(c)  Argument  by  Dr.  Fiddes,  in  his  Theologia  Spec- 
ulativa,  18th  century. 

(1)  Something  does  now  exist. 

(2)  Something  has  existed  eternally. 

(3)  Something  has  been  eternally  self-existent. 

(4)  What  is  self -existent  must  have  all  the  perfec¬ 
tions  which  exist  anywhere  or  in  any  subject. 

(5)  What  is  self-existent  must  have  all  possible  per¬ 
fections,  and  every  perfection  in  an  infinite  measure. 

(6)  What  has  all  possible  perfections  in  an  infinite 
measure  is  God.” 

As  to  the  fifth  proposition  the  reason  seems  to  be, 
that  a  self-existent  being  must  be  eternal,  therefore  infinite 
in  this  one  attribute  of  eternity;  and  if  infinite  in  one 
attribute  must  be  so  in  all  its  attributes;  for  it  borders 
on  contradiction  to  suppose  that  a  being  can  be  infinite 
in  one  respect  and  finite  in  another. 

(d)  Remarks  on  the  Ontological  Argument. 

The  Ontological  argument  has  been  regarded  by  many 
as  a  demonstration,  and  by  others  as  entirely  invalid. 

It  is  not  true  that  every  subjective  idea  has  an  objec¬ 
tive  reality. 

Gaunilo  was  correct  in  saying  that  he  might  conceive 
of  a  lost  island  in  the  ocean,  but  that  was  no  guarantee 
of  its  reality.  But  did  Guanilo’s  illustration  fit  the  case? 
The  argument  does  not  assert  that  any  subjective  idea 
must  have  objective  reality.  But  that  we  have  the  con¬ 
ception  of  a  necessarily  existing  being  and  that  necessary 
existence  is  actual. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


65 


It  is  certain  that  necessary  existence  is  actual.  If 
in  any  way  we  can  arrive  at  necessary  existence  we  may 
assert  its  actuality. 

We  do  arrive  at  the  conviction  of  an  existing  infinite 
being. 

We  instinctively  rise  from  the  contemplation  of  the 
finite  and  imperfect  to  the  infinite  and  the  perfect,  from 
the  limitations  with  which  we  are  possessed  and  environed, 
to  the  unlimited  and  unfettered.  Man  chafes  at  his  limi¬ 
tations  and  imperfections,  and  cries  out  for  the  realization 
of  his  conceptions  as  to  the  infinite  and  eternal. 

The  infinite  seems  to  our  minds  to  be  the  logical 
corollary  of  the  finite;  and  the  perfect  the  corollary  of  the 
imperfect. 

The  infinite  must  bound  the  finite.  Knowing  ourselves 
as  finite  and  imperfect  beings,  we  rise  instinctively  to  the 
conception  of  a  perfect  and  infinite  personal  Being,  giving 
to  that  Being  those  characteristics  which  we  find  in  limited 
measure  in  ourselves. 

Further  we  have  the  idea  of  infinite  space  and  time, 
but  we  feel  that  these  are  empty  and  void  without  an 
infinite  Being  that  exists  in  space  and  endures  through 
time.  And  when  we  have  put  the  infinite  Being  in  the 
infinite  space  and  time,  our  minds  feel  satisfied  with  the 
fitness  of  the  result,  and  realize  that  this  was  the  neces¬ 
sary  truth  to  meet  the  demands  of  our  minds. 

If  this  cannot  be  called  a  mathematical  necessity  it 
is,  at  least,  the  necessity  of  congruity,  a  necessity  that 
grows  out  of  the  fitness  of  things,  and  the  difficulty  of 
conceiving  otherwise,  and  this  is  a  necessity  of  no  mean 
value. 

While  this  argument  is  not  cast  in  the  mold  of  math¬ 
ematical  demonstration  or  syllogistic  formularies,  it  is 
based  on  the  laws  and  proclivities  of  thought.  No  man 
can  think  away  the  infinite;  he  may  think  away  the  finite 
and  conceive  it  not  to  exist;  but  the  infinite  is  a  necessary 
idea.  But  infinite  means  nothing  without  a  subject  that 
is  infinite.  The  human  mind  will  not  rest  satisfied  with 
infinite  time  and  space  without  an  infinite  Being  of  which 
time  and  space  are  the  predicates.  The  human  mind 
postulates  an  infinite  being  as  necessary  to  the  laws  and 
proclivities  of  thought.  Necessary  existence,  not  contin¬ 
gent  existence,  is  the  heart  of  the  ontological  argument. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


06 


This  argument  also  fills  a  subsidiary  office  in  the  fuller 
conception  of  the  nature  of  the  Divine  Being. 

If  the  being  of  God  is  determined  by  any  argument 
whatsoever,  this  ontological  role  furnishes  the  attributes 
with  which  to  clothe  him.  The  child  being  born,  the  ward¬ 
robe  is  at  hand  ready-furnished  to  supply  it  with  suitable 
apparel.  Thus  the  ontological  argument  does  the  double 
duty  of  being  contributory  proof  of  God’s  existence  and 
a  store  house  of  attributes  with  which  to  clothe  him. 

2.  The  Cosmological  Argument — Kosmos  logos,  (also 
called  Aetiological) 

(a)  This  argument  is  derived  from  the  law  of  cause 
and  effect. 

It  is  an  intuitive  truth  that  every  effect  must  have 
an  adequate  cause.  The  universe  is  an  effect,  therefore 
it  must  have  had  a  cause.  The  cause  must  be  distinct 
from  the  effect  else  the  effect  would  be  its  own  cause 
and  therefore  nothing  could  produce  something  which  is 
a  contradiction. 

The  world  or  the  universe  is  an  effect  because  every¬ 
thing  in  it,  substance,  order  and  life,  is  changeable  and 
mutable.  Matter  as  we  know  it  is  composite.  Life  on 
this  globe  had  a  beginning. 

A  first  cause  is  therefore  a  logical  necessity. 

Plato  and  Aristotle  argued  from  motion  to  an  eternal 
self-moving  power. 

Heb.  3:4.  Every  house  is  builded  by  some  man,  but  he  who 
built  all  things  is  God. 

The  alternatives  are,  the  eternity  of  the  present  order, 
or  an  infinite  series  of  causes. 

% 

The  former  is  refuted  by  our  observation  and  con¬ 
sciousness,  and  the  latter  is  unthinkable. 

(b)  Hume  objected  that  we  know  nothing  of  cause, 
only  of  sequence,  that  because  one  thing  follows  another, 
is  no  proof  of  cause  and  effect  but  only  an  invariable 
sequence. 

Even  though  we  see  a  man  make  a  watch  or  a  gun 
and  cannot  escape  the  fact  of  causation  thus  far,  yet  we 
have  never  seen  worlds  made  and  are  not  entitled  to  con¬ 
clude  that  the  world  had  a  cause. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


67 


That  sequence  does  not  constitute  cause  and  effect, 
is  shown  in  the  fact  that  the  cause  and  effect  are  in¬ 
variably  in  the  same  order,  indicating  something  in  the 
cause  that  produces  the  effect. 

The  effect  never  precedes  the  cause.  Thunder  never 
precedes  lightning,  nor  does  heat  precede  fire. 

Hume  has  failed  to  express  the  true  nature  of  cause; 
which  is,  that  power  resides  in  the  cause,  and  produces 
the  effect. 

The  law  of  cause  and  effect  is  not  due  to  a  general¬ 
ization  from  particulars,  or  an  induction  from  a  wide  field 
of  observed  instances;  that  is  to  say  it  is  not  necessary 
to  observe  a  million  instances  of  cause  and  effect  nor  a 
thousand  nor  a  hundred  before  one  can  legitimately  de¬ 
clare  that  every  effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause.  No 
complete  induction  could  ever  be  made;  and  he  who  has 
observed  one  instance  is  as  qualified  to  state  the  law  as 
he  who  has  observed  a  million.  The  law  is  intuitive ; 
every  effect  not  only  has  a  cause,  but  must  have  one.  The 
law  involves  the  necessity  that  is  the  earmark  of  intuition. 

(c)  It  is  objected  that  this  argument  does  not  prove 
that  the  cause  is  GOD. 

Answer:  This  argument  is  just  one  link  in  the  chain 
of  evidence  and  is  supplemented  by  others. 

(d)  Any  doctrine  of  evolution  or  development  can¬ 
not  refute  the  cosmological  argument. 

No  effect  can  transcend  its  cause.  The  stream  can¬ 
not  rise  higher  than  its  source.  Something  cannot  come 
from  nothing.  Life  cannot  arise  but  from  the  source  of 
life.  Intelligence  cannot  proceed  from  the  non-intelligent. 
Personality  cannot  come  from  the  impersonal. 

A  process  of  development  requires  a  maker  of  the 
process. 

See  Outlines  of  Theology,  A.  A.  Hodge,  page  35. 

3.  The  Teleological  Argument.  Telos  logos. 

This  is  the  argument  from  design,  or  purpose,  or  a- 
daptation. 

Design  implies  a  designer.  The  world  exhibits  design, 
therefore  it  had  an  intelligent  maker.  The  old  illustration 
of  the  watch  is  valid  still.  Seeing  a  ship  in  a  bay,  no 
one  could  believe  that  its  pieces  of  steel  and  timber  floated 


68 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


together  and  adjusted  themselves  into  a  great  dreadnought 
with  all  its  complicated  structure. 

The  world  is  full  of  design.  The  Bridgewater  Treatises, 
one  of  which  deals  with  the  hand,  supplies  abundant  evi¬ 
dence. 

Chemistry,  Astronomy,  and  all  the  sciences  bear  wit¬ 
ness  of  design. 

The  argument  is  not  limited  to  the  material  world, 
but  embraces  the  mental  constitution  of  our  nature  as 
well. 

The  possession  of  memory,  affection,  will,  etc.,  shows 
evidence  of  design  as  well  as  the  construction  and  func¬ 
tions  of  the  body. 

One  objection  to  this  argument  is  that  adaptation  is 
rather  accidental  than  designed,  e.  g.  because  the  nose  is 
used  to  support  spectacles  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was 
made  with  that  specific  design. 

Such  denial  could  not  be  made  of  all  the  evidences  of 
design  in  the  world.  The  eye  was  evidently  designed  for 
sight  and  was  no  mere  accident. 

If  it  is  asked  how  this  adaptation  is  accounted  for 
if  not  by  a  designer,  the  answer  is,  by  chance  or  by  law. 
There  is  a  million  to  one  against  chance.  As  for  law,  the 
law  has  to  be  accounted  for  as  well  as  the  fact.  Law 
requires  a  law-giver  even  when  we  speak  of  natural  law. 

4.  The  Argument  from  Man’s  Moral  and  Religious 
Nature. 

(a)  We  have  a  moral  nature,  the  author  of  that  na¬ 
ture  must  be  a  moral  being. 

Conscience  testifies  to  the  fact  of  a  moral  law.  That 
law  implies  a  moral  law  giver. 

(b)  We  have  a  sense  of  responsibility;  we  feel  that 
we  must  answer  for  what  we  are  and  for  what  we  do.  This 
feeling  of  responsibility  is  not  to  ourselves,  nor  to  man¬ 
kind  in  general,  but  to  some  superior  being  who  is  cog¬ 
nizant  of  good  and  ill,  who  rewards  the  good  and  punishes 
the  evil. 

That  being  must  be  a  person,  a  moral  person  greater 
and  higher  than  ourselves. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


69 


(c)  The  universality  of  the  moral  nature  shows  that 
it  is  not  due  merely  to  education,  but  is  a  part  of  our 
nature  as  given  to  11s  by  our  Creator. 

(d)  Sin  brings  a  sense  of  guilt,  a  conviction  that  we 
deserve  punishment.  This  implies  a  righteous  judge. 

(e)  We  see  that  good  and  evil  are  not  proportion¬ 
ately  rewarded  in  this  world.  This  requires  an  adjustment 
hereafter,  and  necessitates  a  just  tribunal  before  a  just 
judge. 

(f)  Man  has  certain  ineradicable  religious  convic¬ 
tions. 

Some  one  has  said:  “Man  is  incurably  religious.”  It 
is  a  matter  of  fact  that  where  he  has  no  knowledge  of 
the  true  religion  he  invents  one  for  himself.  The  great 
heathen  religions  are  essentially  just  the  mighty  strivings 
of  the  human  spirit  to  answer  its  own  religious  questions, 
and  express  its  ineradicable  convictions.  They  all  bear  in¬ 
dubitable  testimony  to  the  religious  nature  of  man  and 
therefore  indirectly  to  the  being  of  God. 

Man’s  sense  of  dependence  on  a  higher  power  is  uni¬ 
versal;  his  quick  appeal  to  a  higher  being  in  time  of  dan¬ 
ger  is  instinctive;  his  conceptions  of  infinity,  his  longing 
for  immortality,  his  sense  of  life’s  incompleteness  are  in¬ 
herent  in  his  nature. 

A  heathen  woman  hearing  for  the  first  time  of  a  God 
of  mercy,  love  and  goodness  exclaimed:  “there,  I  told  you 
there  must  be  a  God  such  as  that.”  Helen  Keller  when 
first  told,  by  Phillips  Brooks,  of  the  great  and  good  being 
called  God,  smiled  radiantly  and  replied:  “Why  I  have 
known  him  all  the  time  only  I  did  not  know  his  name.” 

Man  feels  profoundly  convinced,  without  formal  argu¬ 
ment,  that  there  must  be  some  objective  reality  to  his 
heart’s  deepest  need,  and  answering  its  inextinguishable 
cry;  else  his  nature  is  a  mockery  and  he  is  imposed  upon 
in  the  very  constitution  of  his  being. 

The  universal  human  heart  says :  there  must  be  a  God. 
The  cry  of  human  nature  can  only  find  the  answer  to  its 
cry  in  a  personal,  living  and  loving  God. 

Plato  was  right  when  he  said  that  atheism  is  a  disease. 

Again,  the  moral  intuitions  of  men  are  the  prerequi¬ 
sites  of  any  knowledge  of  God.  They  provide  the  human 


70 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


capacity  into  which  the  God-knowledge  should  come — the 
soil  prepared  to  receive  the  seed — the  ear  attuned  to  detect 
his  voice. 

God’s  personality,  love,  justice,  truth,  holiness  are  com¬ 
prehensible  only  because  God  has  implanted  in  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  human  nature,  the  element  or  power  of  receptiv¬ 
ity.  Into  this  structural  receptacle  God’s  revelation  comes, 
and  fits  the  nature  thus  prepared  like  a  key  to  its  lock. 
Human  nature  was  made  for  the  revelation,  and  the  revel¬ 
ation  was  made  for  the  human  nature  and  we  have  the 
three-fold  testimony — the  witness  of  human  nature — the 
witness  of  revelation — and  the  witness  of  their  fitness 
for  each  other. 

5.  The  Historical  Argument. 

The  history  of  the  world  gives  evidence  of  an  over¬ 
ruling  power. 

That  God  has  been  in  the  history  of  the  human  race 
can  scarcely  be  doubted  by  an  unprejudiced  mind. 

The  principles  of  God’s  moral  government  are  exhib¬ 
ited  in  the  history  of  nations  as  well  as  in  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  men. 

Ps.  75:7.  But  God  is  the  judge,  he  putteth  down  one  and  set- 
teth  up  another. 

Dan.  2:21.  He  removeth  kings  and  setteth  up  kings. 

Dan.  5:21.  Till  he  knew  that  the  most  high  God  ruled  in 
the  kingdom  of  men  and  he  appointeth  over  it  whomsoever  he  will. 

English  Protestantism  looks  upon  the  defeat  of  the 
Spanish  Armada  as  a  divine  intervention. 

The  settlement  of  America  by  Protestant  immigrants 
saved  it  from  the  fate  of  South  America  and  thereby  saved 
the  world  for  democracy. 

Who  will  deny  that  God’s  hand  was  in  all  this. 

When  destruction  threatened  the  world  by  German 
aggression,  men  said:  “Where  is  now  thy  God?”  But  we 
now  reply  with  the  trench  poet: 

“I  know  when  noble  men  rose  up  to  fight 

There  is  a  God,  there  is  a  God.” 

The  historical  argument  also  includes  the  fact  that 
all  nations  have  had  the  belief  that  there  is  a  supreme 
being.  What  all  the  world  has  believed  may  well  be  true. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


71 


6.  Kant’s  Objections. 

Kant  subjected  the  arguments  for  the  existence  of 
God  to  a  searching  criticism. 

(a)  As  to  the  Ontological  argument,  he  held  that 
the  idea  was  no  guarantee  of  objective  reality.  But  Kant’s 
objection  to  the  Ontological  argument  missed  the  main 
point;  failing  to  distinguish  between  necessary  and  con¬ 
tingent  being.  The  argument  does  not  postulate  the  ob¬ 
jective  reality  of  any  and  every  subjective  conception; 
but  the  actual  existence  of  that  which  is  conceived  as 
necessarily  existing. 

(b)  The  Cosmological  argument  was  offset  by  the 
possibility  of  an  infinite  series  of  causes,  which  Kant  held 
to  be  thinkable. 

(c)  The  Teleological  argument,  according  to  Kant, 
gives  us  only  an  artificer  but  not  the  God  of  theology. 

(d)  The  Moral  argument,  after  some  restrictions, 
was  allowed  considerable  weight  and  was  a  practical  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  existence  of  God. 

Discussion  of  Kant’s  Position.  (See  Appendix  A.  at 
the  end  of  the  volume). 

Kant’s  position  on  these  subjects  was  warped  by  his 
philosophy  which  was  a  transcendental  idealism.  He  cast 
doubt  on  the  reality  of  the  external  world  and  accordingly 
denied  all  arguments  drawn  from  the  external  world.  He 
held  that  as  to  the  external  world  we  know  only  phenom¬ 
ena  but  not  things  in  themselves ;  and  that  even  this  know¬ 
ledge  is  conditioned  by  a  priori  concepts  of  the  mind;  that 
appearances  give  us  no  knowledge  of  things. 

Kant’s  system  had  serious  consequences. 

His  arguments  helped  rather  than  refuted  the  Deism 
of  Hume. 

On  the  other  hand  it  was  but  a  short  step  from  his 
theory  of  knowledge  to  ultra  idealism  that  denied  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  any  external  world.  And  further,  after  his 
valuation  of  the  arguments  for  the  Divine  existence  it  is 
not  strange  to  hear  his  disciple,  Fichte,  declaring  that  the 
moral  order  of  the  world  is  God  and  there  is  no  other  God. 

Since  Kant’s  premises  were  wrong,  his  conclusions 
were  also  wrong.  A  wrong  psychology  gave  rise  to  a 
wrong  theology.  We  deny  Kant’s  premises  and  hold  to 


72 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


the  validity  of  the  arguments  which  he  repudiated,  and 
assert  that  we  have  knowledge  of  things  through  phen¬ 
omena. 

If  Kant’s  reasoning  were  valid,  it  would  apply  against 
the  moral  argument  which  he  admitted;  for  if  our  Know¬ 
ledge  be  a  delusion,  our  moral  concepts  may  be  also. 

The  phenomenal  theory  of  knowledge  was  answered 
by  Dr.  James  McCosh. 

7.  It  has  been  somewhat  common,  among  modernistic 
thinkers,  since  the  days  of  Kant,  to  repudiate  the  objec¬ 
tive  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God,  and  to  rest  the 
case  on  moral  considerations  or  on  a  subjective  conviction 
founded  on  experience  or  a  sense  of  need. 

This  is  the  method  of  Prof.  Wm.  Adams  Brown.  The 
position  suffers  much  from  its  denials,  and  because  it  is 
partial  and  limited.  Kant  took  his  position  in  order  to 
be  consistent  with  his  theory  of  Knowledge,  which  was 
perceptive  agnosticism. 

The  Modernists  follow  Kant,  Schleiermacher,  and  Rits- 
chl  in  their  subjectivism  which  is  a  species  of  Rationalism. 

But  if  we  distrust  the  faculties  that  apprehend  the  ex¬ 
ternal,  can  we  ever  be  sure  of  the  faculties  that  conceive 
the  internal?  If  the  Cosmological  and  Teleological  argu¬ 
ments  are  of  no  value,  who  will  certify  to  us  the  value 
of  some  man’s  mystical  or  subjective  convictions? 

Two  arguments  are  better  than  one,  especially  if  one 
supplements  and  confirms  the  other.  If  we  may  not  infer, 
as  a  matter  of  certainty,  the  reality  of  the  external  object 
in  which  phenomena  inhere,  we  are  bound  to  apply  the 
same  reasoning  to  the  phenomena  of  thought,  feeling,  and 
all  our  consciousness,  and  deny  the  substantial  reality  of 
the  soul.  This  is  the  logical  outcome  of  the  Kantian  and 
Ritschlian  systems. 

It  is  unthinkable  to  most  rational  minds  that  the  soul 
subsists  only  in  its  functions,  and  that  there  is  no  sub¬ 
stratum  of  reality  that  exists  as  a  basis  of  these  manifest¬ 
ations.  From  such  conclusions  we  recoil. 

Whoever  impugns  the  trustworthiness  of  our  faculties, 
falls  into  the  pit  which  he  himself  has  digged.  He  virtual¬ 
ly  denies  the  truth  of  his  denial.  It  is  true  as  Thomas 
Aquinas  pointedly  said:  “Etiam  qui  negat  veritatem  esse, 
concedit  veritatem  esse ;  si  enim  veritas  non  est,  non  verum 
est  non  esse  veritatem.” 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


73 


8.  Ritschl  repudiates  the  Cosmological  and  Teleolog¬ 
ical  arguments  on  the  ground  that  the  conception  of  the 
world-whole  is  due  to  religion;  and  to  derive  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  God  from  such  an  idea  is  reasoning  in  a  circle. 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  relevancy  of  his  argument 
is  not  apparent ;  we  have  an  immediate  apprehension  of  the 
world;  we  have  the  laws  of  thought  logical  and  intuitive 
in  our  make-up,  and  to  rise  from  apprehended  facts, 
through  rational  processes  to  inevitable  conclusions,  is  as 
justifiable  as  anything  we  find  in  the  methods  of  Ritschl. 

(See  Appendix  B.  A  Summary  of  Ritschlianism,  at  the 
end  of  the  volume). 

The  theological  world  will  probably  come  to  its  senses 
when  it  has  forgotten  forever  Kant  and  Ritschl’s  unwar¬ 
ranted  distinction,  or  rather  divorce,  between  the  theo¬ 
retical  and  practical. 

What  is  practically  true  cannot  be  theoretically  false. 
The  Christian  Scientist,  who  denies  the  reality  of  the 
world,  and  lives  as  if  it  were,  can  only  be  regarded  as 
logically  inconsistent. 

The  same  inconsistency  attaches  to  these  systems. 


Chapter  III.  Anti-Theistic  Theories. 

* 

Section  I.  Atheism. 

Atheism  is  the  belief  that  there  is  no  God.  Atheism 
is  incapable  of  proof.  No  one  can  prove  that  there  is  no 
God. 

But  Atheism  is  chiefly  occupied  in  denials  rather  than 
affirmation. 

The  Atheist  may  substitute  for  a  personal  God  the 
persistence  of  force,  the  laws  of  nature,  or  the  potential¬ 
ity  of  impersonal  substance. 

Atheism  is  refuted  by  proving  Theism  to  be  true. 


Section  II.  Polytheism. 

Polytheism  is  the  belief  in  many  Gods.  Polus,  many , 
Theos,  God. 


74 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Polytheism  seems  to  have  arisen  by  means  of  nature 
worship. 

A  personal  being  was  supposed  to  preside  over  the 
natural  elements  as  sun,  moon,  rivers,  winds,  etc. 

Polytheism  has  always  led  to  moral  degradation. 

Many  of  the  gods  were  believed  to  possess  all  the  evil 
passions  of  the  human  heart,  and  the  worshipper  never 
rises  above  the  object  of  his  worship. 

If  polytheism  exists  in  the  world  today,  it  is  a  vanish¬ 
ing  minimum. 

The  law  of  parsimony  requires  us  not  to  assign  more 
causes  than  necessary,  hence  a  single  personal  and  infinite 
God  satisfies  the  rational  mind  more  than  a  multiplicity 
of  gods. 

It  was  the  rational  weakness  of  Polytheism  that  gave 
Mohammedism  its  opportunity,  and  contributed  to  its 
success. 

Section  III.  Hylozoism. 

Hylozoism  is  the  doctrine  that  matter  is  endued  with 
life,  that  the  world  has  a  soul  that  works  out  the  shapes, 
forms,  motions,  and  life  observed  in  nature. 

The  universe  is  its  own  cause. 

Hylozoism  is  not  unlike  Pantheism. 

It  contravenes  Theism  in  its  denial  of  a  personal  and 
eternal  God  who  is  extramundane  and  supramundane,  the 
Creator  and  judge  of  men. 

Section  IV.  Materialism. 

1.  Materialism  denies  the  reality  of  spirit,  ignores 
the  distinction  between  matter  and  mind,  accounts  for  all 
mental  and  spiritual  phenomena  as  the  properties  and 
functions  of  matter.  One  says,  “The  brain  secretes 
thought  as  the  liver  secretes  bile.”  Brain  has  fibers  of 
thinking  as  the  legs  have  fibers  of  motion. 

In  Materialism,  there  is  no  God,  devil,  angel,  or  human 
soul;  no  heaven,  no  hell,  no  immortality  but  the  persist¬ 
ence  of  matter  and  force. 

2.  Objections  to  Materialism. 

(a)  Our  own  consciousness  assures  us  that  we  are 
more  than  mere  matter.  We  know  ourselves  to  be  dif- 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


75 


ferent  from  and  better  than  stone  or  tree.  Our  whole 
moral  nature  with  its  sense  of  right  and  wrong  and  moral 
accountability  protests  against  materialism.  Our  concep¬ 
tions  of  eternity  and  immortality  resent  the  assertion  that 
the  grave  ends  all.  Man’s  mental  and  spiritual  nature  find 
no  adequate  end  in  death. 

(b)  All  experience  and  observation  show  that  life 
can  only  come  from  previously  existing  life,  therefore  the 
life  of  this  world  had  a  living  cause.  No  spontaneous 
generation  has  ever  been  proven. 

There  is  a  bridgeless  chasm  between  dead  matter  and 
living  personality. 

(c)  All  the  evidence  of  intelligent  design  and  purpose 
in  the  world  contradict  a  blind  materialism. 

(d)  Materialists  assert  that  as  muscular  action  is 
attended  by  heat,  and  nervous  energy  is  attended  by  heat, 
and  even  thought  is  attended  by  the  production  of  heat, 
therefore  all  alike  are  only  physical  force  and  there  is  no 
need  to  assume  a  vital  or  spiritual  substance  to  account 
for  them. 

Admitting  the  concomitant  heat  in  each  action,  what 
directs  the  physical  force  and  nervous  energy  into  lines 
of  purposeful,  designing  and  pre-meditated  action?  Can 
physical  force  of  any  kind  display  reason,  purpose,  design? 

Though  thought  be  attended  by  heat,  it  does  not  fol¬ 
low  that  thought  and  heat  are  identical  or  that  correlation 
of  these  two  forces  is  possible. 

(e)  Materialists  assert  that  life  depends  upon  the 
proper  adjustment,  proportion  and  chemical  combination 
of  material  particles,  that  the  difference  between  dead  and 
living  protoplasm  is  a  matter  of  combination.  But  it  is 
just  as  confidently  asserted  on  the  other  hand  that  living 
protoplasm  is  exactly  identical  with  dead  protoplasm  so 
far  as  its  chemistry  is  concerned. 

Therefore,  that  which  makes  them  differ  is  not  their 
chemistry.  Life  is  not  a  matter  of  chemical  combination 
nor  of  material  arrangement  of  any  kind. 

(f)  Materialism  seeks  vindication  as  reducing  the 
world  to  a  unity.  Some  kind  of  Monism  has  been  the  goal 
of  philosophy,  and  a  materialistic  monism  claims  to  satisfy 
the  demand.  But  the  materialistic  monist  has  failed  to 


76 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


justify  his  claims.  In  reducing  the  world  and  its  life  to 
the  unity  of  matter  he  is  met  with  the  fact  that  matter 
itself  is  not  a  unity.  There  are  about  seventy  elements  in 
matter.  The  materialist  must  reduce  all  matter  to  one 
element  to  prove  a  monistic  philosophy. 

But  even  if  he  could  do  this,  he  could  get  no  farther 
than  his  one  element  in  accounting  for  the  variety  in  the 
world’s  form  and  life ;  for  one  element  cannot  combine  with 
itself  to  produce  something  different.  If  he  should  reduce 
all  to  two  elements,  the  combination  of  the  two  might 
give  rise  to  a  third  or  more;  but  then  there  would  be 
duality  and  not  unity. 

The  materialist  must  also  reckon  with  force.  If  mat¬ 
ter  is  the  ultimate  principle,  is  force  the  result  of  mat¬ 
ter?  And  the  materialist  must  say  yes.  If  then  matter 
as  the  ultimate  principle  gives  rise  to  force,  it  gives  some¬ 
thing  which  as  a  unity  it  does  not  possess  which  is  un¬ 
thinkable. 

But  if  as  many  say,  matter  is  the  result  of  force,  then 
materialistic  monism  vanishes  in  favor  of  a  dynamic  mon¬ 
ism. 


(g)  The  modern  theory  of  matter  is  that  all  mat¬ 
ter  is  reducible  to  two  elements ;  one  is  the  electron,  which 
is  a  unit  of  negative  electricity,  and  the  other  is  a  mass 
of  positive  electricity  about  which  nothing  is  known. 

All  matter  is  supposedly  reducible  to  these  two  ele¬ 
ments,  so  that  we  may  say  that  all  matter  is  composed 
of  electricity,  or  that  electricity  is  composed  of  matter. 

What  bearing  has  this  on  materialism? 

If  all  matter  is  thus  reduced  to  the  vanishing  point, 
and  seems  to  pass  over  into  electricity,  it  does  not  speak 
much  for  the  eternal  permanence  of  matter.  The  mon¬ 
istic  substance  out  of  which  to  build  a  universe  should 
certainly  be  an  irreducible  element. 

Taking  this  in  connection  with  the  observed  disinte¬ 
gration  of  many  of  the  elements  such  as  uranium,  thor¬ 
ium,  radium,  etc.,  we  are  faced  with  the  fact  of  the  de¬ 
composition  of  matter,  and  the  disintegration  of  its  vis¬ 
ible  forms  rather  than  its  self-maintainence  and  evolution. 

Further,  if  all  forms  of  matter,  with  all  their  different 
properties  and  characteristics,  are  composed  of  primordial 
units  which  are  themselves  exactly  alike,  is  this  not  the 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


77 


triumph  of  materialism  with  its  claims  that  arrangement 
of  atoms  constitutes  the  differences? 

On  the  other  hand  if  the  primordial  units  are  exact¬ 
ly  alike,  materially  or  physically,  their  difference  in  com¬ 
bination  must  be  due  to  something  else  than  their  mat¬ 
erial  or  physical  character.  Their  difference  cannot  con¬ 
sist  in  the  combination  of  their  likeness. 

Two  cells  of  protoplasm  exactly  alike  materially  and 
structurally,  act  in  different  ways.  This  cannot  be  ex¬ 
plained  from  a  materialistic  viewpoint.  Some  immaterial 
resident  force  lies  back  of  or  within  the  material  globule. 
So  with  the  ultimate  units  of  matter,  call  them  atoms,  cor¬ 
puscles,  electrons,  or  whatever,  if  they  are  absolute  dupli¬ 
cates  of  each  other,  must  depend  for  their  difference  in 
combination  on  something  not  involved  in  their  material¬ 
ity.  More  than  ever,  this  theory  thrusts  us  back  upon  the 
power  of  an  immanent  God. 

Arrangement  of  the  units  will  not  account  for  the 
different  elements.  For  there  is  practically  an  infinite 
number  of  units  and  therefore  an  infinite  variety  of  ar¬ 
rangements.  If  the  supposition  were  true  there  must  be 
a  corresponding  number  of  elements  whereas  there  are 
comparatively  few. 

In  all  this  discussion,  several  things  must  be  remem¬ 
bered  : — 

First.  That  in  the  anatysis  of  matter,  the  last  word 
may  not  yet  have  been  said. 

Second.  That  there  are  decided  limitations  to  our 
ocular  powers. 

Third.  That  our  analytical  apparatus  may  yet  be  far 
from  perfect. 

Fourth.  That  we  may  never  be  able  to  transcend  all 
our  natural  limitations. 

(h)  Perhaps  the  most  damaging  evidence  against 
materialism  is  that  it  is  absolutely  destructive  of  morality, 
and  all  social  and  civil  order.  A  philosophy  that  reduces 
man  to  mere  matter  and  puts  him  on  a  level  with  a  clod, 
or  at  most  with  a  beast,  provides  no  moral  restraints. 
The  system  that  dispenses  with  God,  dispenses  with  human 
responsibility,  and  gives  man  over  to  his  passions  and  lusts. 
This  has  been  the  undeniable  record  of  materialism  in 


78 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


individual,  social,  and  international  affairs. 

How  materialism  has  affected  the  world  in  recent 
years  has  been  well  stated  by  Dr.  Frederic  C.  Spurr  as 
follows:  “For  five  decades  before  the  war,  every  effort  was 
made  to  ‘depersonalise  the  universe.’  The  idea  of  a  per¬ 
sonal  God  was  derided.  All  that  existed  was  ‘Law’ — iron 
and  unpitying.  The  materialistic  schools  of  thought  were 
determined  to  rid  the  world  of  all  belief  in  a  living  God. 
Materialism  reigned. 

“And  then  there  came  a  day  when  people  understood 
what  this  reign  really  meant.  Hitherto,  it  had  been  a 
philosophy.  But  the  World  War  translated  it  into  a  force 
—diabolical,  cruel,  inhuman.  In  a  moment  the  mask  fell. 
The  world  knows  today  what  a  bitter  price  it  has  had  to 
pay  for  burning  incense  to  the  gods  of  materialism.  Elev¬ 
en  millions  of  young  men  lie  in  war  graves.  More  millions 
are  smitten  with  physical  disabilities.  Misery  and  unrest 
are  everywhere.  Men  believed  that  there  was  no  living 
God ;  they  acted  accordingly.  They  believed  that  men 
were  only  animals;  they  treated  them  as  such  and  slew 
them  by  the  million.  The  real  source  of  all  the  world’s 
miseries  today  is  the  belief  in  materialism.” * 

*Three  philosophies  have  divided  the  world  of  thought: — 

(a)  Materialism,  all  is  matter. 

(b)  Idealism,  all  is  spirit. 

(c)  Realism,  recognizing  the  reality  of  both  matter  and  spirit. 

Section  V.  Pantheism. 

1.  Pantheism  is  derived  from  Pan,  all  and  Theos,  God. 

Pantheism  signifies  that  God  is  all  and  all  is  God. 

It  is  further  expressed  by  “hen  theos  estin”,  God  is 
one.  Nothing  exists  out  of  God.  God  comprises  all  in 
his  (or  its)  own  existence. 

Pantheism  is  briefly  summarized  thus: — 

In  the  eternity  of  the  past,  existed  a  something  des¬ 
ignated  Being;  impersonal,  unconscious,  with  no  power  of 
will  or  choice,  neither  matter  nor  spirit,  but  having  the 
potentiality  of  both.  This  Being  developed  by  the  law  of 
necessity  into  the  universe  as  it  is,  and  has  been,  and 
will  continue  to  develop  ad  infinitum.  It  has  come  to  its 
highest  development  and  reached  consciousness  in  man. 
The  universe  is  God,  and  God  is  the  universe,  and  man 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


79 


is  the  highest  existence-form  of  God.  There  is  no  per¬ 
sonal  God  aside  from  personality  in  man.  All  individual 
forms  rise  up  from  this  Being  and  disappear  into  it  again, 
as  the  waves  of  the  sea  rise  to  form  and  lose  their  indi¬ 
vidual  existence  in  the  waters  of  the  ocean  and  go  on  form¬ 
ing  new  waves  of  the  same  substance.  There  is  therefore 
no  personal  immortality.  Man  appears  for  a  brief  time 
and  loses  himself  in  the  great  universe  of  Being.  His  sub¬ 
stance  may  enter  into  other  beings  and  that  is  all  the  fu¬ 
ture  he  has  beyond  the  grave. 

Pantheism  conceives  of  the  universe  as  but  one  sub¬ 
stance  with  the  two  attributes  of  extension  and  thought. 
All  material  things  are  this  substance  in  extension,  and  all 
immaterial  things  are  the  same  substance  under  the  cate¬ 
gory  of  cognition.  The  physical  world  is  one  aspect  of 
this  substance,  the  mental  world  is  the  other  aspect  of 
it.  In  the  development  of  the  universe,  it  is  both  cause 
and  effect. 

Pantheism  underlies  the  old  Hindu  philosophy.  It 
was  revived  in  Europe  by  Spinoza  about  1650,  ran  its 
course  through  Fichte,  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  Schleiermacher, 
etc.,  and  has  somewhat  tinged  some  modern  theology. 

2.  Objections  to  Pantheism. 

(a)  Pantheism  assumes  the  existence  of  the  eternal 
something;  but  offers  no  proof  of  its  existence,  and  no 
proof  of  what  it  is. 

(b)  It  makes  personality  proceed  from  imperson¬ 
ality. 

If  personality  is  a  pre-eminent  virtue,  the  pantheist’s 
God  out  of  which  all  things  arise,  is  less  than  the  sentient 
beings  of  this  world. 

(c)  If  God  is  impersonal,  we  can  neither  love  nor 
pray  to  such  a  God,  and  religion  is  an  unreality. 

(d)  Pantheism’s  Absolute  Being  is  not  absolute  at 
all,  because  deficient  in  personality. 

(e)  Personality  is  not,  as  Pantheism  says,  a  limi¬ 
tation  to  being,  and  therefore  impossible  to  the  infinite. 

Personality  does  not  depend  on  the  contraposition  of 
the  non-ego;  but  the  personal  ego  must  have  real  existence 
before  there  is  any  contra-position  of  the  non-ego. 


80 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


(f)  Pantheism  reduces  the  universe  to  the  law  of 
necessity,  and  thus  detroys  all  free  agency. 

Spinoza  says:  “The  totality  of  finite  objects  is  posited 
in  the  Essence  of  God  and  not  in  his  will.” 

All  development  is  by  necessity  and  not  through  pur¬ 
pose. 

(g)  If  God  is  all,  then  all  the  evil  of  the  world  is  as 
much  a  part  of  God  as  the  good;  and  as  all  things  come 
by  a  law  of  necessity,  the  evil  is  a  necessity.  This  blots 
out  all  distinction  of  right  and  wrong,  and  destroys  moral¬ 
ity  in  the  world. 

(h)  It  seems  most  reasonable  to  believe  that  where 
there  is  causation  there  is  volition,  and  where  there  is 
volition  there  is  life,  intelligence  and  personality. 

(i)  Pantheism  teaches  that  mind  emerges  at  the  end 
of  the  development  or  evolution  of  the  universe.  But  the 
order  and  design,  which  presuppose  mind,  appear  in  the 
material  universe  before  (on  the  pantheistic  scheme)  mind 
had  emerged.  The  order  and  design  in  the  material  uni¬ 
verse  would  prove  that  mind  was  at  the  beginning,  rather 
than  at  the  end  of  material  development. 


Chapter  IV.  Anti-Christian  Theories. 

Section  I.  Deism. 

1.  Deism  admits  that  there  is  a  personal  God,  that 
he  created  the  world  and  impressed  on  it  the  laws  that 
govern  it. 

Having  done  this,  God  withdrew  from  the  world  and 
leaves  it  to  the  reign  of  natural  law. 

There  is  no  revelation,  no  miracle,  no  incarnation,  no 
supernatural  manifestation,  no  intervention  of  God  in  the 
affairs  of  men,  no  providence,  no  control.  God  has  noth¬ 
ing  more  to  do  with  the  world  that  he  has  made. 

2.  Objections  to  Deism. 

(a)  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  God  would  make 
a  world  and  not  care  for  the  world  that  he  has  made. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


81 


All  nature,  from  the  farthest  reach  of  the  telescope 
to  the  deepest  research  of  the  microscope,  exhibits  the 
pains-taking  care  with  which  God  made  the  world.  That 
he  should  not  care  for  it,  contradicts  all  our  notions  of  the 
fitness  of  things. 

(b)  All  evidence  of  an  overruling  providence,  all 
sense  of  responsibility  for  human  conduct,  all  proof  of 
revelation,  stands  opposed  to  Deism. 

(c)  It  is  subversive  of  all  morality  to  deny  that  God 
is  a  moral  governor.  The  lives  of  Voltaire  and  Thomas 
Paine  bear  testimony. 

3.  History  of  Deism. 

Lord  Herbert  (1648)  may  be  regarded  as  the  founder 
of  English  Deism.  He  held  a  much  higher  and  better 
form  of  infidelity  than  appeared  in  the  following  century. 
His  was  a  mixture  of  truth  and  error.  He  believed  in  God, 
piety,  repentance  and  pardon  as  the  result  of  repentance, 
rewards  and  punishments  in  this  world  and  the  next;  but 
repudiated  a  written  revelation  and  distinctive  Christian¬ 
ity  in  the  incarnation  and  atonement  of  Christ. 

After  Lord  Herbert,  Deism  ran  the  gamut  of  steady 
deterioration,  through  the  materialistic  Hobbes  (1679), 
Chubb  (1747),  Bolingbroke  (1751),  and  others  till  it  reach¬ 
ed  its  full  development  in  David  Hume  (1776).  Hume’s 
system  invalidates  not  only  the  truths  of  revealed  religion, 
but  of  natural  religion  as  well. 

English  Deism  was  followed  by  French  Deism,  repre¬ 
sented  by  Helvetius,  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  Diderot  and 
others. 

French  Deism  was  more  superficial  than  English  Deism, 
though  perhaps  more  brilliant  in  its  literary  form. 

The  replies  to  Deism  were  many  and  effectual  by 
Richard  Baxter,  Ralph  Cudworth,  Samuel  Clarke,  John 
Conybeare,  Joseph  Butler  in  his  “Analogy,”  Nathaniel 
Gardner  in  his  “Credibility  of  Gospel  History,”  and  others. 
Deism  was  met  and  completely  routed  by  these  Christian 
apologists. 


Section  II.  Rationalism. 

Rationalism  arose  about  the  middle  of  the  18th  cen¬ 
tury. 


82 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


The  philosophy  of  Christian  Wolff  (ob.  1754)  lent  its 
influence  to  the  movement. 

Wolff  himself  was  not  a  rationalist  but  stressed  the 
importance  of  natural  theology,  and  sought  to  show  that 
the  doctrines  of  religion  were  demonstrable  by  reason. 

His  followers  passed  on  to  the  position  that  nothing 
was  to  be  accepted  as  true  but  what  was  demonstrable 
by  reason. 

What  men  considered  demonstrable  by  reason  was  a 
very  variable  quantity. 

Wolff  held  that  revelation  gave  us  certain  mysteries, 
things  necessary  and  otherwise  unknowable. 

The  moderate  rationalists  held  that  the  Bible  contained 
some  supernatural  revelations  but  limited  this  to  things 
approved  by  reason.  This  generally  excluded  miracles. 

The  radical  or  Deistical  rationalists  denied  all  super¬ 
natural  revelation.  Reimarus  (ob.  1768)  wrote  the 
Wolfenbuettel  Fragments  published  by  Lessing  1777,  in 
which  he  calls  for  the  repudiation  of  supernatural  revela¬ 
tion  in  order  to  rescue  more  securely  natural  religion  and 
ethics. 

Observe : 

1.  Rationalism  is  an  effort  to  derive  all  religious 
knowledge  from  reason  as  a  source  instead  of  getting  it 
from  other  sources. 

2.  By  reason  is  meant  not  merely  the  process 
of  reasoning,  but  all  the  contents  of  the  cognitive  powers, 
whether  innate  ideas  or  a  priori  principles. 

3.  There  are  various  kinds  of  proof,  mathematical 
demonstration,  circumstancial  evidence,  cumulative  evi¬ 
dence,  testimony,  etc. 

4.  What  seems  proof  to  one  man  may  not  seem  proof 
to  another. 

5.  The  testimony  of  honest  men  is  valid  proof  where 
other  forms  of  proof  are  not  available.  The  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity,  Virgin  Birth,  Resurrection  of  Christ,  etc.,  are 
received  on  testimony. 

6.  The  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures  are  not  unreason¬ 
able,  not  contrary  to  reason  or  contrary  to  known  truth. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


83 


7.  Christianity  is  rationally  defensible.  We  do  not 
for  a  moment  admit  that  Christianity  cannot  be  vindicated 
in  the  forum  of  the  world's  thought. 

8.  Reason  has  its  proper  place  in  religion,  neither 
revelation  nor  reason  can  dispense  with  the  other. 

Orthodoxy  does  not  repudiate  reason,  only  its  right 
to  pre-establish  religious  truth  from  itself. 

9.  Rationalism  in  denying  revelation  became  more  ir¬ 
rational  than  the  orthodoxy  that  it  repudiated. 

For  the  irrationality  of  Rationalism,  see  Objections 
to  Miracles. 

10.  The  force  of  Rationalism  was  greatly  weakened 
by  Kant.  (ob.  1804) 

Kant  wrote  his  “Critique  of  Pure  Reason"  to  show 
that  reason  is  not  competent  to  prove  any  religious  truth. 
He  denied  the  value  of  the  Cosmological  and  Teleological 
arguments  and  rested  his  belief  in  God  and  religious  truth 
on  man’s  moral  nature. 

As  Kant  sought  to  discredit  our  knowledge  of  an  out¬ 
side  world,  his  followers,  Fichte  and  Schelling,  used  his 
method  to  prove  that  there  was  no  such  world.  Event¬ 
ually  Rationalism  gave  way  to  this  idealistic  Pantheism; 
and  the  cure  was  worse  than  the  disease. 


Section  III.  Christian  Science. 

1.  Statement. 

Christian  Science  is  idealistic  Pantheism. 

It  is  pantheistic  in  its  view  of  God.  “God  is  all  and 
all  is  God."  Science  and  Health. 

It  is  idealistic  in  its  view  of  the  world.  “Matter  will 
be  finally  proven  to  be  nothing  but  mortal  illusion." 
Science  and  Health. 

It  denies  the  reality  of  matter,  sickness  and  sin. 

It  claims  to  be  Christian  Science;  but  it  is  neither 
scientific  nor  Christian. 

2.  Objections  to  Christian  Science. 

(a)  It  is  unscientific. 

It  denies  the  trustworthiness  of  our  senses.  That  is 
unscientific. 


84 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


It  is  not  based  on  facts  established  by  observation 
and  experience;  but  denies  the  most  palpable  facts,  and  as¬ 
serts  the  most  monstrous  absurdities  by  deduction  from 
false  premises. 

It  is  speculative  and  not  scientific;  it  comes  by  its 
conclusions  not  by  induction  from  a  collection  of  facts, 
but  by  deduction  from  hypothecated  postulates. 

It  denies  the  reality  of  matter  which  we  can  see,  feel, 
weigh  and  measure,  and  declares  the  belief  in  matter  to 
be  an  illusion  of  mortal  mind. 

It  contradicts  our  consciousness  and  observation  in  the 
denial  of  sin,  and  pain,  and  sickness. 

It  will  not  stand  the  test  of  physical  science,  and  just 
as  little  the  test  of  mental  science. 

(b)  It  is  unphilosophic. 

Philosophy’s  problem  is  to  answer  the  whence,  why, 
what,  and  whither  of  things. 

Christian  Science  in  denying  the  reality  of  the  ma¬ 
terial,  and  the  trustworthiness  of  our  senses,  has  thrown 
overboard  the  half  of  human  knowledge.  No  true  philoso¬ 
phy  can  result  when  half  the  facts  are  ignored.  It  gives 
no  rational  account  of  the  origin  of  things  nor  of  their 
purpose  and  destiny.  Its  philosophical  postulates  are  er¬ 
roneous,  as  is  seen  in  its  calling  the  infinite  the  all. 

(c)  It  is  unchristian,  rather  anti-christian. 

It  denies  the  personality  of  God  and  makes  God  a 
principle. 

Sometimes  indeed  it  speaks  as  if  God  were  personal, 
but  its  favorite  term  is  principle.  It  says:  God  is  good, 
God  is  truth,  God  is  love. 

But  it  goes  further  and  adds:  Good  is  God,  truth  is 
God,  love  is  God. 

Thus  it  identifies  these  attributes  with  God  and  dei¬ 
fies  the  attributes. 

It  denies  the  creation  of  the  material  universe. 

It  denies  the  creation  of  man.  Man  is  co-existent  with 
God,  has  no  actual  being  apart  from  God.  This  is  its  ele¬ 
ment  of  Pantheism.  On  this  basis,  too,  it  is  declared  that 
man  cannot  sin. 

It  denies  the  incarnation  in  the  Christian  sense.  Mary 
did  not  give  birth  to  an  actual  body  but  a  spiritual  idea, 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


85 


an  idea  produced  by  her  communion  with  the  divine  Prin¬ 
ciple. 

It  denies  the  Deity  of  Christ  except  as  all  men  are 
divine. 

It  denies  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

It  denies  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

Some  one  said :  “What  becomes  of  the  atonement 
when  suffering  which  was  not  suffering  (only  a  ‘great  il¬ 
lusion’),  in  a  body  which  was  not  a  body  (only  a  ‘mortal 
belief’),  was  offered  in  expiation  for  sin  which  was  not 
sin?” 

It  denies  that  salvation  is  by  the  death  and  blood 
and  substitution  of  Christ.  What  right  has  it  to  call  it¬ 
self  Christian? 

It  puts  no  fair  interpretation  on  the  Scriptures. 

It  makes  Mrs.  Eddy  supplementary  to  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Scriptures,  setting  forth  Science  and  Health  as 
the  highest  development  and  interpretation  of  Christian 
truth. 

Mrs.  Eddy  describes  the  Bible  as:  legend,  fable,  myth, 
full  of  mistakes,  full  of  thousands  of  errors,  a  compila¬ 
tion  of  human  documents,  etc.,  etc. 

But  she  describes  Science  and  Health  as :  revealed 
truth,  the  perfect  word  of  God,  truth  without  mixture 
of  human  error,  divine  teaching,  infallible  teaching,  etc. 

Christian  Science  denies  the  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  he  has  sent,  and  is  therefore  a  false  religion  and  an 
Anti-Christ. 


Section  IV.  Pessimism. 

Pessimism  is  the  philosophy  that  regards  the  world 
and  life  as  essentially  evil.  It  holds  that  the  world,  if 
not  the  worst  that  can  be,  is  at  least  sufficiently  evil  to 
be  worse  than  none  at  all. 

Its  distinguishing  characteristics  may  be  expressed 
by  the  formula: — 

“To  live  is  to  desire,  to  desire  is  to  want,  to  want 
is  to  suffer,  and  therefore  to  live  is  to  suffer.”  It  adopts 
the  words  of  Sophocles: — 

“Never  to  have  been  born  is  the  happiest  fate  and 
the  next  best  thing  to  die  young;”  or  the  words  of  Byron: — 


86 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


“Count  o’er  the  joys  thine  hours  have  seen; 

Count  o’er  thy  days  from  anguish  free. 

And  know,  whatever  thou  hast  been, 

’Tis  something  better  not  to  be.” 

The  higher  grades  of  life  suffer  the  most  and  the 
lower  the  least. 

The  lowest  animals  are  therefore  happier  than  man. 

Ignorance,  in  one  respect,  is  preferable  to  knowledge 
as  providing  less  ground  for  exquisite  suffering.  How¬ 
ever,  if  men  were  not  so  ignorant  and  knew  better  what 
life  really  is,  they  would  will  not  to  live;  they  would  re¬ 
fuse  to  preserve  themselves,  and  to  propagate  their  species, 
and  would  welcome  death  as  the  highest  good. 

This  philosophy  was  exploited  by  the  German, 
Schopenhauer,  1788-1860. 

His  system  is  tinctured  with  Pantheistic  Buddhism. 

He  says:  “Brahma  is  said  to  have  produced  the  world 
by  a  kind  of  fall  or  mistake;  and  in  order  to  atone  for  his 
folly  he  is  bound  to  remain  in  it  himself,  until  he  works 
out  his  redemption.  As  an  account  of  the  origin  of  things 
that  is  admirable.” 

Again,  “According  to  the  doctrine  of  Buddhism,  the 
world  came  into  being  as  the  result  of  some  inexplicable 
disturbance  in  the  heavenly  calm  of  Nirvana.  Subsequent¬ 
ly  by  a  series  of  moral  errors  the  world  became  gradually 
worse  and  worse  until  it  assumed  the  dismal  aspect  it 
wears  today.  Excellent.” 

He  does  not  accord  so  much  excellence  to  the  Biblical 
account,  but  says: 

“In  its  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  world,  Judaism 
is  inferior  to  any  other  form  of  religious  doctrine  professed 
by  a  civilized  nation.” 

Schopenhauer  begins  one  of  his  chapters  thus: — 

“Unless  suffering  is  the  direct  and  immediate  object 
of  life,  our  existence  must  entirely  fail  of  its  aim.”  The 
aim  of  existence  is  to  suffer  and  the  suffering  is  forced 
on  us  by  a  malevolent  necessity. 

Schopenhauer’s  philosophy  is  destructive  and  immoral. 

He  boldly  advocates  the  right  and  virtue  of  suicide, 
though  he  seems  not  to  have  had  the  courage  or  consist¬ 
ency  to  practice  it. 

In  another  chapter  he  advocates  polygamy  and  con¬ 
cubinage,  and  declares  that  woman  should  not  be  intrusted 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


87 


with  property  or  the  management  of  affairs,  but  made 
subject  to  and  the  servant  of  man. 

Perhaps  the  most  charitable  thing  we  can  say  of 
Schopenhauer’s  philosophy  is  that  it  seems  to  be  the  prod¬ 
uct  of  a  disordered  mind.  Both  his  mental  and  moral 
make-up  must  have  possessed  a  peculiar  twist  to  have  pro¬ 
duced  such  a  monstrosity.  His  work  is  so  irrational  as 
to  refute  itself. 

We  may  add  that  his  life  was  like  his  philosophy. 

Yet  monstrous  as  it  was,  Schopenhauer’s  philosophy 
was  taken  up  by  others  especially  by  Von  Hartmann;  of 
whom  Strauss  remarks:  “Von  Hartmann  says  that  this 
world  is  so  bad  that  none  would  have  been  better;  Von 
Hartmann’s  philosophy  is  part  of  the  world;  and  as  such 
it  is  so  bad  that  it  would  have  been  better  if  it  had  never 
been.” 

For  an  able  discussion  and  refutation  of  Pessimism, 
see  Prof.  Flint’s  “Anti-Theistic  Theories.” 


Section  V.  The  Doctrine  of  a  Finite  God. 

There  is  a  current  view  that  God  is  a  limited  being, 
and  himself  subject  to  a  process  of  evolution — that  God 
is  developing  under  the  same  laws,  or  similar  laws,  as  the 
universe. 

The  fact  of  evil  in  the  world  has  led  some  minds  to 
a  belief  in  a  finite  God,  and  this  belief  has  gotten  new 
impetus  from  the  world  war. 

John  Stuart  Mill  concluded,  from  the  presence  of  evil 
in  the  world,  that  God  cannot  be  both  good  and  omnipo¬ 
tent.  If  good,  he  cannot  be  omnipotent,  and  if  omnipo¬ 
tent,  he  cannot  be  good.  Either  he  is  malevolent  in  per¬ 
mitting  evil,  or  helpless  to  prevent  it.  In  either  case  he 
is  limited;  either  in  goodness  or  in  power. 

Prof.  William  James,  philosopher  and  psychologist  of 
Harvard  University,  declares  for  a  finite  God ;  and  supposes 
that  this  finite  God  of  the  known  universe  is  subordinate 
to  a  greater  and  all-inclusive  Absolute. 

The  brilliant  French  philosopher  Bergson,  though  not 
so  definitely  declarative  on  this  subject,  seems  open  to 
this  interpretation  by  those  who  seek  to  carry  out  his 
“Creative  Evolution”  "with  its  “vital  thrust”  to  its  legiti¬ 
mate  conclusions. 


88 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


George  Bernard  Shaw,  H.  G.  Wells,  R.  H.  Dotterer 
and  others  fall  into  the  same  class. 

In  regard  to  this  we  remark: — 

1.  Neither  God’s  goodness  nor  power  is  limited  by 
the  fact  of  evil. 

God  being  infinitely  good  and  omnipotent  may  have 
reasons  for  the  permission  of  evil,  though  these  reasons 
are  to  us  inscrutable. 

2.  The  imperfection  of  the  finite  does  not  necessarly 
imply  imperfection  in  God.  Imperfection  belongs  to  the 
sphere  of  the  finite.  Moreover,  the  freedom  of  a  rational 
creature  makes  its  moral  imperfection  at  least  a  possibil¬ 
ity.  And  again  the  government  of  the  world  shows  that 
God  allows  large  liberty  to  the  created  personality. 

3.  It  would  seem  to  be  a  necessity  of  thought  that 
the  infinite  is  the  logical  corollary  of  the  finite.  We  are 
impelled  to  the  conclusion  that  there  must  be  an  infinite. 
The  infinite  bounds  and  limits  the  finite.  Our  very  limi¬ 
tations  compel  us  to  recognize  an  unlimited. 

4.  A  finite  and  developing  Deity  would  be  necessarily 
less  in  each  preceding  age;  and  diminishing  toward  a  past 
eternity  would  ultimately  be  a  negligible  minimum,  or 
nothing.  Then  the  question  of  a  beginning  being  raised, 
we  are  involved  in  mental  difficuties  and  absurdities  that 
are  logically  intolerable.  An  uncaused  progression  is  un¬ 
thinkable,  but  an  eternal  first  cause  satisfies  all  ration¬ 
al  requirements. 

5.  A  developing  universe  is  satisfactorily  accounted 
for  by  an  infinite  and  immanent  God;  but  what  can  ac¬ 
count  for  a  developing  Deity  except  some  other  super-di- 
vine  immanent  Infinite?  And  what  have  we  gained? 

6.  •  This  view  of  God  is  too  near  akin  to  an  evolu¬ 
tionary  Pantheism,  the  sin  of  which  system  is  that  it  blots 
out  all  freedom,  all  morality,  and  eventually  all  personality 
for  the  individual.  Imperfection,  disease,  sin,  crime  are 
all  a  fatalistic  divine  development,  equally  necessary  and 
equally  God.  Some  one  has  said:  “In  this  system  every¬ 
thing  is  God  but  God  himself.”  The  doctrine  of  a  develop¬ 
ing  God  lends  itself  too  much  to  the  submerging  of  God  in 
the  universe,  and  the  universe  in  God. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


80 


7.  A  developing  being  cannot  be  eternal  else  the  de¬ 
velopment  would  long  since  have  been  complete.  If  God 
is  a  developing  God  he  must  have  had  a  beginning,  and 
would  therefore  require  some  other  eternal  being  as  his 
cause. 


Chapter  V.  The  Nature  of  God. 


Section  I.  The  Oneness  of  God. 

1.  The  oneness  of  God  is  indicated  by  the  law  of 
parsimony. 

It  is  a  law  of  reason  not  to  assign  more  causes  than 
necessary. 

If  one  first  cause  is  sufficient  we  may  assume  that 
this  is  all. 

2.  The  universe  is  one  system  indicating  one  designer. 

3.  Our  moral  accountability  leads  us  to  feel  respons¬ 
ible  to  some  one  who  is  our  Creator. 

4.  The  Scriptures  constantly  declare  that  there  is  but 
one  God. 


Section  II.  The  Personality  of  God. 

1.  Proof  of  the  personality  of  God. 

(a)  All  the  arguments  for  God’s  existence  are  also 
proofs  of  his  personality.  The  efficient  cause  of  the  world 
could  not  be  less  than  a  person.  The  world  exhibits  in¬ 
telligence  ana  purpose  and  therefore  requires  an  intelli¬ 
gent  and  designing  Creator.  And  an  intelligent  Creator 
must  be  a  person. 

(b)  Our  own  personality  is  proof  of  a  personal  God. 
The  product  is  not  greater  than  its  cause.  If  we  have 
personality,  the  cause  of  our  personality  must  likewise  be 
a  person.  If  there  is  in  us  intelligence,  will,  self-conscious¬ 
ness,  our  Creator  must  possess  the  same. 


90 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


We  know  ourselves  as  persons;  we  know  ourselves  as 
finite  causes;  it  is  therefore  in  line  with  our  own  experi¬ 
ence  to  refer  causation  to  personal  agency. 

(c)  There  is  further  proof  in  the  moral  nature  of 

man. 

The  fact  that  man  is  incurably  religious,  the  univer¬ 
sality  of  religious  conviction,  the  depth  and  strength  of 
religious  sentiment,  all  require  the  fact  of  a  personal  God. 

Man’s  religious  nature  is  but  a  mockery,  a  tantalizing 
deception,  if  there  be  no  God  to  whom  men  may  look  up 
and  whom  they  may  revere. 

Augustine  voices  the  universal  human  heart  when  he 
says:  “0  God,  thou  hast  made  us  for  thyself  and  we  can¬ 
not  rest  until  we  rest  in  thee.”  Man  cannot  worship  a 
nonentity,  or  pray  to  a  principle,  or  feel  responsibility  to 
a  material  force. 

The  constitution  of  man’s  nature  demands  a  personal 

God. 

(d)  The  Scriptures  represent  God  by  the  personal 
pronouns  and  put  them  in  his  mouth:  “I  am  that  I  am.” 

(e)  Joseph  Cook  lays  down  the  following  points  as 
to  the  personality  of  God: — 

(1)  “There  cannot  be  thought  without  a  thinker. 

(2)  There  is  thought  in  the  universe. 

(3)  There  is  therefore  a  thinker  in  the  universe. 

(4)  But  a  thinker  is  a  person. 

(5)  Therefore  there  is  a  personal  thinker  in  the  uni¬ 
verse.” 

2.  Objections  to  the  Personality  of  God. 

Materialism,  Pantheism  and  Agnosticism  deny  or  cast 
doubt  on  the  personality  of  God. 

Some  specific  arguments  are  as  follows: — 

(a)  That  we  cannot  know  reality. 

It  is  said  that  all  knowledge  of  the  external  world 
comes  through  the  senses;  that  we  perceive  only  phenom¬ 
ena,  and  not  tnings  themselves;  that  therefore  we  have  no 
certain  knowledge  of  anything  ab  extra. 

If  phenomena  do  not  misrepresent  the  thing  itself, 
at  least  we  have  no  certain  assurance  of  their  similarity. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


91 


Kant,  Spencer  and  other  agnostics  denied  the  trust¬ 
worthiness  of  our  senses  and  therefore  of  our  knowledge. 

Thus  the  mind  cannot  reach  assurance  of  anything 
outside  of  itself;  if  indeed  its  own  intuitive  principles  are 
not  as  much  at  fault  as  its  perceptions;  so  that  the  mind 
clothes  the  not-self  with  conceptions  of  its  own  fabrica¬ 
tion. 

This  doctrine  of  the  relativity  of  knowledge,  as  it  is 
called,  has  been  used  to  oppose  the  belief  in  the  personal¬ 
ity  of  God. 

Answer : — 

If  all  knowledge  is  as  uncertain  as  this  philosophy 
asserts,  then  this  philosophy  is  as  uncertain  as  the  rest. 
“Why  should  we  believe  an  agnosticism  that  renders  all 
belief  impossible,  including  a  belief  in  the  fundamental 
principles  of  that  agnosticism  ?” — Snowden. 

Some  one  has  said  that  “such  denial  of  knowledge 
must  deny  its  own  denial,”  that  “agnosticism  commits 
suicide  and  then  strangely  keeps  on  talking.” 

This  theory  destroys  all  knowledge. 

If  the  human  mind  is  fundamentally  a  perversive 
organ  of  knowledge,  then  no  knowledge  is  possible,  and 
every  human  being  is  deluded. 

In  this  connection,  several  things  must  be  firmly  held: 

First.  That  the  mind  is  a  true  instrument  of  know¬ 
ledge. 

Second.  That  our  senses  are  sufficiently  trustworthy 
for  the  acquirement  of  knowledge. 

Third.  That  phenomena  represent  reality,  and  that 
we  know  things  by  means  of  phenomena. 

Fourth.  That  finite  knowledge  is  true  knowledge 
though  finite. 

The  human  mind  can  know  God  to  the  extent  of  its 
comprehension. 

(b)  A  second  objection  to  the  personality  of  God  is 
that  personality  is  limitation  and  limitation  is  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  infinity. 

It  is  said  that  there  can  be  no  personality  without 
self-consciousness,  and  that  this  implies  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  self  and  the  not-self,  between  the  subject  and 
the  object. 


92 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Thus  personality,  by  its  very  constitution,  is  limited 
by  the  not-self  over  against  the  self,  and  the  object  over 
against  the  subject;  and  that  such  limitation  cannot  belong 
to  an  infinite  being. 

Answer : — 

This  argument  proceeds  upon  the  false  assumption 
that  the  infinite  is  the  all,  and  anything  that  is  not  God 
impinges  on  his  infinitude. 

That  is  the  fudamental  postulate  of  Pantheism. 

The  fact  is  that  the  lack  of  personality  is  a  limitation 
rather  than  the  possession  of  it.  In  the  realm  of  our 
knowledge  and  experience,  it  is  the  unintelligent #  non-moral 
and  unconscious  world  that  suffers  limitation.  The  pos¬ 
session  of  personality  enlarges  the  scope  of  being  and  the 
excercise  of  its  powers. 

The  distinction  of  self  and  the  not-self  is  not  a  limit¬ 
ation  to  a  being  purely  spiritual.  The  objection  in  question 
applies  to  the  spiritual  realm,  the  conditions  of  the  material. 


Section  III.  Substance  and  Attributes. 

1.  Substance  is  that  in  which  certain  attributes  in¬ 
here. 

Substance  has  being,  power  and  permanence. 

There  are  two  substances  and  only  two:  matter  and 
spirit. 

The  world  is  matter;  God,  angels  and  souls  of  men 
are  spirit. 

2.  The  substance  of  God  is  pure  spirit  unmixed  with 
matter. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  says:  “without  bodily  parts 
or  passions.” 

When  we  speak  of  God  as  spirit,  we  refer  to  his  sub¬ 
stance  in  which  his  attributes  inhere. 

When  we  speak  of  God  as  a  spirit,  we  refer  to  him  as 
a  personal  being. 

When  we  speak  of  the  essence  of  God,  we  mean  all  that 
is  essential  to  his  being  as  God,  i.  e.  substance  plus  attri¬ 
butes. 

3.  His  substance  is  spirit;  his  attributes  are  the  qual¬ 
ities  or  properties  of  that  substance,  such  as  Eternity, 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


93 


Infinity,  Omnipresence,  Omnipotence,  Holiness,  Love,  Im¬ 
mutability,  Sovereignty  etc. 

4.  We  assign  to  God  the  properties  of  spirit,  and  deny 
to  him  the  properties  of  matter. 

When  the  Scriptures  speak  of  God’s  eye,  ear,  hand,  etc., 
they  speak  metaphorically.  This  is  called  anthropomor¬ 
phism. 


5.  The  attributes  of  God  are  distinguishing  marks 
of  His  being,  a  few  of  which  we  consider  as  follows: — 

(a)  Omnipresence.  God  fills  all  space  and  pervades 
all  things  with  His  invisible  and  immaterial  substance. 

The  interstellar  ether  may  help  our  conceptions  of 
His  infinity  and  immanence,  but  is  not  a  perfect  illustration. 

The  ether  is  part  here  and  part  among  the  stars.  Not 
so  God.  God  is  incapable  of  partition; — not  part  of  him 
here  and  part  there;  but  the  whole  undivided  essence  of 
God  present  at  every  point  of  space,  at  every  moment  of 
time. 

Though  equally  omnipresent  to  all  creatures  at  all 
times,  yet  He  makes  special  manifestation  of  Himself  at 
certain  times  and  is  then  said  to  be  especially  or  particular¬ 
ly  present;  as  to  Moses  at  the  burning  bush,  or  where  two 
or  three  are  gathered  together  in  His  name. 

The  infinitude  of  God  is  misunderstood  by  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Scientist  who  says  that  there  can  be  only  one  infinite; 
and  as  God  is  infinite  there  can  nothing  exist  but  God. 
That  would  be  true  if  God  were  a  material  being.  This 
is  a  fundamental  error  of  Christian  Science. 

(b)  Eternity.  “From  everlasting  to  everlasting  thou 
art  God.”  He  has  existed  from  all  eternity  and  exists  to 
all  eternity, — no  beginning,  no  end. 

All  the  past  and  all  the  future  is  as  vividly  present 
to  the  divine  mind  as  the  present  moment. 

There  is  no  succession  of  thoughts  in  the  divine  mind; 
nor  succession  of  feelings,  or  purposes.  All  God’s  thoughts, 
feelings  and  purposes  are  from  eternity. 

Doctor  Hodge  says  that  with  God  all  duration  is  an 
eternal  now;  which  might  seem  to  obliterate  all  distinction 
of  Past,  present,  and  future. 

But  the  divine  mind  must  mark  the  distinction  of  past, 


94 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


present  and  future  matters  of  fact;  though  all  things  may 
be  equally  vivid  to  His  thought. 

Nothing  can  be  added  to  God’s  knowledge,  feeling 
or  purpose.  He  is  therefore  immutable ; — the  same  yester¬ 
day,  today  and  forever. 

Since  God  is  eternal,  He  must  be  self-existent,  and 
absolutely  independent  of  all  other  beings  as  to  His  pur¬ 
pose,  action  or  being. 

(c)  Sovereignty.  This  is  his  absolute  right  to  gov¬ 
ern  and  dispose  of  all  creatures  as  he  pleases. 

His  sovereignty  rests  on: — 

His  infinite  superiority. 

His  absolute  ownership,  by  right  of  creation. 

The  absolute  dependence  of  all  things  on  him  for  their 
being  and  continuance. 

God’s  sovereignty  is  a  distinguishing  doctrine  of  the 
Calvinistic  system. 

It  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 

Dan.  4:35.  He  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of 
heaven,  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth;  and  none  can  stay 
his  hand,  or  say  unto  him,  What  doest  thou? 

Matt.  20:15.  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  will  with 
mine  own? 

Rom.  9:21.  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay? 

Again  creation  implies  sovereignty.  Whoever  credits 
God  with  creation  cannot  deny  his  sovereignty  over  all  that 
he  has  made. 

It  is  observed  in  the  affairs  of  life.  No  one  ever  had 
a  chance  to  say  whether  he  would  be  or  not.  Existence 
was  given  to  him  and  his  consent  was  never  asked  in  the 
matter.  A  sovereign  hand  thrust  him  into  being,  hurries 
him  through  a  round  of  experiences,  without  halt,  without 
retreat,  and  without  the  possibility  of  them ;  and  then  takes 
him  hence  whether  he  will  or  no.  No  man  ever  chose 
when  he  would  be  born,  or  where,  or  what; — whether  in 
antedeluvian  times  or  in  the  twentieth  century;  whether 
in  China  or  America;  whether  a  Hottentot,  an  Esquimau, 
or  an  American.  Nothing  is  more  evident  to  a  thinking- 
man  than  the  fact  that  some  sovereignty  rules  his  life. 

Because  God  is  sovereign  he  can  save  when  and  where 
and  whom  he  pleases.  As  the  potter  took  the  marred  ves¬ 
sel  and  reshaped  it  to  his  liking,  so  God  asserted  his  power 
to  redeem  and  restore  a  marred  Judah. — Jer.  18:6. 


05 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 

Behold  0  my  people  I  will  open  your  graves  and  cause 
you  to  come  up  out  of  your  graves  and  bring  you  into  the 
land  of  Israel. — Ezek.  37 :12. 

Because  God  is  sovereign  he  can  answer  prayer. 

Every  man  who  prays  that  God  would  heal  the  sick 
or  convert  a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  ways,  acknow¬ 
ledges  God’s  sovereignty. 

Because  God  is  sovereign  a  man  is  encouraged  to  pray. 
His  hope  and  his  fate  do  not  rest  with  an  impotent  or 
subordinate  god. 

An  ancient  writer  said  that  he  preached  election  not 
only  because  it  was  in  the  Bible,  but  because  it  laid  the 
axe  to  the  root  of  pride,  presumption  and  despair. 

The  doctrine  of  God’s  sovereignty  is  a  most  helpful 
and  encouraging  doctrine.  If  we  had  our  choice,  which 
would  we  choose, — to  be  governed  by  blind  fate,  or  ca¬ 
pricious  chance,  or  irrevocable  natural  law,  or  short  sighted 
and  perverted  self,  or  a  God  infinitely  wise,  holy,  loving  and 
powerful  ? 

He  who  rejects  God’s  sovereignty  may  take  his  choice 
of  what  is  left. 


Section  IV.  Transcendence  and  Immanence. 

1.  God  is  transcendent,  which  is  sometimes  expressed 
by  saying,  He  is  supramundane  or  extramundane. 

God  is  above  and  apart  from  the  world. 

Hegel  denied  the  transcendence  of  God,  saying:  ‘'God 
is  not  a  spirit  beyond  the  stars,  He  is  the  spirit  in  all 
spirit.” 

(a)  He  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  universe 
as  is  done  by  Pantheism  and  Christian  Science. 

(b)  He  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  totality  of  which 
the  universe  is  a  part,  i.  e.  sort  of  a  two-faced  unity. 

(c)  He  is  not  related  to  the  universe  as  soul  to  body. 

(d)  A  cause  and  its  effect  cannot  be  one  and  the 

same,  therefore  we  hold  to  the  transcendence  of  God.  Sub¬ 
ject  and  object  implies  a  distinction,  therefore  we  do  not 
confound  him  with  the  world  which  he  has  made  and  which 
is  the  object  of  His  providence  and  care. 

A  man  is  more  than  his  work;  so  is  God. 


96 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


(e)  God’s  love  to  men,  His  forgiveness  of  sin,  and 
man’s  sense  of  responsibility  rest  on  the  transcendence 
of  God. 

When  transcendence  is  lost,  man’s  sense  of  sin  and 
accountability  vanish,  as  in  the  Pantheistic  and  semi-Pan- 
theistic  systems. 

2.  God  is  immanent  or  intramundane. 

(a)  He  is  not  only  above  and  separate  from  the  phys¬ 
ical  universe,  but  He  pervades  all  things  with  His  mysti¬ 
cal  invisible  substance. 

This  is  more  than  omnipresent  law  and  power;  it  is 
immanent  personality. 

(b)  Man  works  upon  matter  from  without.  God  can 
and  does  work  from  within.  Whatever  development  there 
is  in  the  universe,  illustrates  God’s  working  from  within. 

Man  builds  a  house  or  ship  by  working  from  without, 
God  builds  a  tree  by  working  from  within. 

(c)  We  must  not  stress  the  transcendence  of  God  so 
much  as  to  make  Him  a  mechanical  God;  nor  stress  the 
immanence  of  God  so  much  as  to  lose  Him  in  the  laws  of 
nature. 

(d)  We  must  distinguish  between  God  immanent  in 
the  universe  and  God  identical  with  the  universe;  the  lat¬ 
ter  is  Pantheism. 

(e)  W.  Newton  Clarke  in  his  Christian  Doctrine  of 
God,  says: — 

“At  present  it  is  apparent  that  the  universe  operates 
or  is  operated  from  within.  The  forces  that  are  found  at 
work  are  resident  forces.  The  universe  has  the  appearance 
of  a  self-working  system.  Not  only  its  vastness,  but  its 
internal  self-sufficiency,  forbids  us  to  think  of  it  as  control¬ 
led  from  without. 

“If  God  is  the  operant  force  of  the  great  system,  and 
it  is  operated  from  within,  then  certainly  He  is  within, 
with  His  operative  will  and  energy.” 

Prof.  Clarke  evidently  meant  to  assert  a  personal  im¬ 
manence.  Yet  he  has  been  criticised  for  vagueness  in  this 
statement,  and  for  postulating  nothing  more  than  “an  op¬ 
erant  will  and  energy.” 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


97 

Prof.  Arthur  C.  McGiffert  gives  a  definition  of  im¬ 
manence  that  is  scarcely  distinguishable  from  Pantheism. 
Sharp  distinction  is  needed  between  immanence  and  Pan¬ 
theism. 

W.  L.  Walker,  in  “The  Spirit  and  the  Incarnation,”  and 
in  “Christian  Theism,”  denies  that  the  immanence  of  God 
is  personal,  and  teaches  that  such  terminology  only  express¬ 
es  the  manifestation  of  an  idea  or  principle  gradually 
worked  out  in  the  world. 

But  it  is  scarcely  intelligible  to  speak  of  an  immanence 
of  God  that  is  not  personal.  So  long  as  God  is  not  con¬ 
ceived  of  as  identical  with  the  world,  we  may  say  that 
his  immanence  is  an  immanence  of  substance  and  being; — 
personal  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word. 

(f)  The  immanence  of  God  must  not  be  used  to  deny 
the  reality  of  second  causes;  nor  to  make  God  the  im¬ 
mediate  agent  of  all  the  evil  in  the  world.  As  we  do  not 
make  God  and  the  world  identical,  neither  do  we  lose  the 
human  will  in  the  divine. 

(g)  The  doctrine  of  divine  immanence  gives  new 
beauty  to  the  world. 

“Earth  is  crammed  with  heaven, 

And  every  common  bush  aflame  with  God.” 

“Closer  is  he  than  breathing, 

And  nearer  than  hands  and  feet.” 

“The  fern,  green  and  growing  amid  the  frost;  each 
little  grass  and  lichen  is  a  silent  memento.  The  first  bird 
of  spring,  and  the  last  rose  of  summer;  the  grandeur  or 
dulness  of  evening  and  morning;  the  rain,  the  dew,  the 
sunshine;  the  stars  that  come  out  to  watch  the  farmers’ 
rising  corn;  the  birds  that  nestle  contentedly,  brooding 
over  their  young,  quietly  tending  the  little  strugglers  with 
their  beak, — all  these  have  a  religious  significance  to  a 
thinking  soul.  Every  violet  blooms  of  God.  Each  lily  is 
fragrant  with  the  presence  of  deity.  The  awful  scenes 
of  storm,  and  lightning,  and  thunder,  seem  but  the  stern¬ 
er  sounds  of  the  great  concert,  wherewith  God  speaks  to 
men.” — Source  uncertain. 

In  the  thought  of  God’s  immanence  in  all  his  works, 
we  may  well  wonder,  and  worship,  and  adore. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


93 


Section  V.  A  Trinity  of  Persons. 

1.  The  Godhead  is  a  trinity, — Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism  6.  How  many  persons  are 
there  in  the  Godhead? 

There  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one  God,  the 
same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory. 

This  is  a  matter  of  revelation,  we  could  not  know  it 
otherwise. 

(b)  Proof. 

The  personal  pronouns  are  applied  to  each  of  the  per¬ 
sons  of  the  Trinity. 

The  Father  addresses  the  Son,  the  Son  addresses  the 
Father. 

The  Apostolic  benediction  plainly  implies  the  distinc¬ 
tion  of  three  persons. 

The  baptismal  formula  also  designates  the  three  per¬ 
sons. 

One  person  of  the  Trinity  sends  another.  The  Father 
sends  the  Son  and  the  Father  and  Son  send  the  Spirit. 
Hence  the  distinction  of  three  persons  is  plain.  Opposed 
to,. — Arianism,  Sabellianism,  Unitarianism. 

2.  The  Son  and  Spirit  are  equally  God  with  the  Father. 

The  Son  and  Spirit  are  not  less  eternal  and  powerful 
than  the  Father. 

All  are  equally  eternal,  equally  powerful,  equally  glor¬ 
ious  and  equally  God. 

The  Son  is  not  a  creature  as  the  Arians  believed,  did 
not  derive  his  existence  from  the  Father  but  is  self-exist- 
ent  from  eternity  together  with  the  Father.  John  1:1. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  terms  Son  and  Spirit  refer  to  their  relations  in 
the  Godhead,  or  their  mode  of  subsistence,  and  not  to 
their  origination. 

The  deity  of  each  person  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
all  divine  names,  titles,  attributes,  works  and  worship  are 
given  to  each. 

The  deity  of  Christ  is  considered  in  Soteriology  under 
the  head:  The  Redeemer. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


99 


3.  These  three  persons  are  one  God,  a  trinal  unity. 

The  persons  of  the  Godhead  are  not  as  separate  from 
each  other  as  a  human  person  is  from  every  other  person. 

(a)  There  is  no  division  of  substance;  not  part  of 
it  the  Father  and  part  of  it  the  Son,  and  another  part 
the  Spirit. 

The  one  undivided,  and  indivisible  substance  is  common 
to  the  three  persons. 

In  other  words  the  substance  is  numerically  one. 

In  our  own  spiritual  substance,  it  is  not  one  part  of 
the  mind  that  thinks  and  another  part  that  feels  and  an¬ 
other  part  that  wills ;  but  the  whole  soul  thinks,  the  whole 
soul  feels,  the  whole  soul  wills. 

w  Theological  dogma  asserts  the  unity  or  identity 
of  the  attributes  also,  or  that  the  attributes  are  common 
to  all  the  persons.  Not  three  intelligences,  three  wills,  etc ; 
but  one  intelligence,  one  will,  one  power  in  the  three  persons. 

The  numerical  oneness  of  substance  and  identity  of 
attributes  is  not  supposed  to  obliterate  the  distinctions  of 
personality  and  result  in  only  one  person ;  however  mys¬ 
terious  and  incomprehensible  to  us. 

(c)  The  distinctions  in  the  persons  lie  in  their  re¬ 
lations  to  each  other,  and  in  their  offices  and  operations 
in  the  divine  economy. 

4.  Relation  and  Offices. 

The  Father  stands  in  a  fatherly  relation  to  the  Son, 
and  the  Son  is  called  the  Only-begotten.  The  Spirit  pro¬ 
ceeds  from  Father  and  Son. 

The  word  beget  or  begotten  as  applied  to  the  Godhead, 
does  not  express  a  mode  of  becoming,  but  a  mode  of  ex¬ 
isting. 

The  Nicean  and  Athanasian  Creeds  speak  of  Christ 
as  very  God  of  very  God.  This  is  not  to  be  understood 
as  meaning  that  the  substance  of  the  Son  was  derived  from 
the  substance  of  the  Father  instead  of  being  co-existent 
and  co-eternal  with  the  Father. 

5.  The  Value  of  the  Doctrine. 

Charles  Kingsley  wrote:  “My  heart  demands  the  Trin¬ 
ity  as  much  as  my  reason.  I  want  to  be  sure  that  God 
cares  for  us,  that  God  is  our  Father,  that  God  has  in¬ 
terfered,  stooped,  sacrificed  himself  for  us.  I  do  not  merely 


100 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


want  to  love  a  Christ  whose  will  and  character,  for  aught 
I  know,  may  be  different  from  God’s.  I  want  to  love  and 
honor  the  abysmal  God  himself,  and  none  other  will  satis¬ 
fy  me.  No  puzzling  texts  shall  rob  me  of  this  rest  of 
my  heart  that  Christ  is  the  exact  counterpart  of  him  in 
whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being.  I  say,  bold¬ 
ly,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  not  in  the  Bible,  it 
ought  to  be,  for  the  whole  spiritual  nature  of  man  cries  out 
for  it.” 

6.  Errors  as  to  the  Trinity. 

(a)  The  Arians  denied  the  deity  of  the  Son.  They 
believed  him  to  be  pre-existent  before  the  incarnation,  but 
to  be  a  creature,  less  than  God,  greater  than  men  but  of 
different  nature  from  the  Father. 

(b)  The  Semi  Arians  held  that  the  Son  was  of  like 
nature  with  the  Father  but  not  equal. 

The  Arians  expressed  the  distinction  by  the  word 
Heteroousios,  the  Semi  Arians  by  Homoiousios,  the  ortho¬ 
dox  by  Homoousios,  different  nature,  like  nature,  same 
nature. 

(c)  The  Sabellians  held  to  a  modal  trinity  that  there 
were  not  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  but  one  person 
manifesting  himself  in  three  modes. 

In  one  respect,  he  is  Father,  in  another  Son,  and  in 
still  another  Spirit. 

This  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament. 

(d)  The  Socinians  and  modern  Unitarians  look  on 
Christ  as  a  mere  man,  a  good  man,  and  a  great  teacher. 
If  a  good  man  we  may  surely  believe  him  when  he  claimed 
to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Mark  14:61,  62. 

7.  The  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity. 

This  is  treated  in  Soteriologv  under  the  subject,  The 
Redeemer. 

8.  The  Holy  Spirit,  or  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity. 

The  term  Spirit  is  applied  to  the  third  person  not 
to  differentiate  his  substance  from  that  of  the  Father  and 
Son;  for  all  are  numerically  one  substance  and  all  equally 
spirit.  The  term  Spirit  distinguishes  his  person.  And 
spiration  in  regard  to  the  Spirit  corresponds  to  generation 
in  regard  to  the  Son  as  expressing  the  mode  of  subsistence. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


101 


(a)  The  Spirit  is  God. 

Where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  mentioned  in  Scripture  it 
is  plain  that  he  is  regarded  as  God.  He  is  coupled  with 
the  Father  and  Son  in  the  Apostolic  Benediction  and  the 
formula  of  baptism. 

Divine  attributes  are  assigned  to  him. 

Divine  worship  is  offered  to  him. 

Divine  works  are  attributed  to  him,  e.  g.  inspiration, 
regeneration,  santification,  etc.  Divine  names  are  also 
applied  to  him;  Spirit  of  God,  Spirit  of  Christ,  Spirit  of 
his  Son,  Eternal  Spirit,  Spirit  of  Holiness,  Spirit  of  Wis¬ 
dom,  Spirit  of  Grace,  etc. 

(b)  The  Spirit  is  a  Person. 

Personal  pronouns  are  applied  to  him. 

He  speaks  and  is  spoken  to.  Acts  13:2.  The  church 
has  always  prayed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Agency  is  affirmed  of  him.  He  reveals,  convicts,  re¬ 
generates,  comforts,  seals,  intercedes,  etc.  etc. 

He  bestows  extraordinary  gifts,  as  on  the  day  of  Pent¬ 
ecost  and  at  the  house  of  Cornelius. 

When  we  are  bidden  not  to  grieve,  resist,  and  sin  a- 
gainst  the  Spirit,  his  personality  is  implied. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  personality  in  man 
requires  separateness  from  others,  or  distinct  individual¬ 
ity.  But  this  is  not  true  of  the  Godhead  where  there  is 
substantial  unity,  or  oneness  of  substance. 

So  that  personality  as  applied  to  man  only  approx¬ 
imately  expresses  the  fact  as  applied  to  the  Godhead. 

The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  redemption  is  treated 
in  that  part  of  Soteriology  called  Pneumatology  or  the 
Application  of  Redemption, 


102 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Chapter  VI.  The  Decrees  of  God. 


Section  I.  God  has  a  purpose. 

Catechism  7.  What  are  the  decrees  of  God? 

The  decrees  of  God  are  his  eternal  purpose,  according 
to  the  counsel  of  his  will,  whereby,  for  his  own  glory,  he 
hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass. 

(a)  Involved  in  his  personality. 

(b)  Proved  by  the  Scriptures. 

Isa.  14:27.  The  Lord  hath  purposed  and  who  shall  disannul  it? 

Isa.  43:13.  Yea,  before  the  day  was  I  am  he;  and  there  is 
none  that  can  deliver  out  of  my  hand;  I  will  work  and  who  shall 
hinder  it? 

Isa.  46:10.  Declaring  the  end  from  the  beginning  and  from 
ancient  times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done,  saying:  My  counsel 
shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure. 

Dan.  4:35.  He  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven 
and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth;  and  none  can  stay  his  hand, 
etc. 

Acts  15:18.  Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  eternity. 

Acts  17:26.  And  hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed. 

Ephes.  1:11.  Being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of 
him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will. 


Section  II.  Classified  as 

(a)  Positive.  What  he  does  he  purposed  to  do. 

(b)  Permissive.  What  he  permits  he  purposed  to 
permit. 

Section  III.  God’s  purpose  embraces  all  events. 

(a)  All  the  general  course  of  history. 

Acts  17 :26. 

(b)  Particular  events. 

Gen.  45:7,  8.  God  sent  me  before  you  to  preserve  you  a 
posterity  on  the  earth  and  to  save  your  lives — so  now  it  was  not 
you  that  sent  me  but  God. 

Micah  5:2.  The  birth  of  Christ  in  Bethlehem. 

(c)  Good  acts  of  men. 

Ephes.  2:10.  For  we  are  his  workmanship  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  unto  good  works. 

Jno.  15:16.  Ye  have  not  chosen  me  but  I  have  chosen  you 
and  ordained  you  that  ye  should  go  and  bring  forth  fruit. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


103 


(d)  Evil  acts  of  men. 

Prov.  16:14.  All  things  hath  the  Lord  wrought  for  their  destin¬ 
ed  purpose;  yea,  even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil. 

Acts  2:23.  Him  being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel 
and  foreknowledge  of  God  ye  have  taken  and  by  wicked  hands 
have  crucified  and  slain. 

Acts  4:27,  28.  Against  thy  holy  child  Jesus,  Herod  et  al.  were 
gathered  together  to  do  what  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  predestinated 
to  come  to  pass. 

(e)  So-called  accidental  events. 

Ps.  34:20.  He  keepeth  all  his  bones  not  one  of  them  is  broken. 

(f)  Means  as  well  as  ends. 

Acts  27:31.  Except  these  abide  in  the  ship  ye  cannot  be  saved. 

II  Thess.  2:13.  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to 
salvation  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth. 

I  Pet.  1:2.  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the 
Father  thru  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprink¬ 
ling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

If  God  chooses  a  man  unto  salvation,  he  chooses  the 
means  to  effect  the  end. 


Section  IV,  The  order  of  the  decrees. 

To  create.  To  permit  the  fall.  To  save.  To  use  the 
necessary  means. 


Section  V.  God’s  decree  renders  certain  whatever  is 
decreed. 

1.  True  of  the  positive  decrees. 

2.  True  of  the  permissive  decrees. 

(a)  This  is  hard  to  understand.  Since  the  permis¬ 
sive  decree  concerns  only  sinful  acts  of  which  God  is  not 
the  efficient  cause,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  permission  makes 
them  certain  to  come  to  pass. 

Dr.  Shedd  says  it  is  inexplicable. 

The  most  reasonable  explanation  is  that  the  sinful 
nature  will  go  to  the  boundary  set  by  the  permission  of 
God;  hence  God’s  bounding  of  sin  renders  certain  what 
and  how  much  will  come  to  pass. 

Satan  could  go  no  farther  with  Job  than  God  per¬ 
mitted;  but  it  is  certain  that  he  would  go  as  far  as  God 
allowed. 


104 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


(b)  The  truth  of  the  fact  is  proved  by  the  prediction 
of  sinful  acts. 

Christ’s  death  was  foretold,  hence  it  was  certain. 

True  of  every  predicted  sinful  act.  Hence  Permission 
makes  certain. 


Section  VI.  God’s  decree  makes  foreknowledge  pos¬ 
sible. 

We  cannot  see  how  God  could  foresee  anything  unless 
he  had  decreed  it. 

Only  that  is  foreknown  which  is  certain,  and  that  only 
is  certain  which  is  decreed. 

God’s  decree  cannot  rest  on  an  undecreed  event;  else 
certainty  would  rest  on  uncertainty,  which  is  impossible. 

What  is  foreknown  must  first  be  predetermined. 


Section  VII.  The  decree  in  reference  to  free  agency. 

The  decree,  though  rendering  future  events  certain, 
does  not  violate  free  agency. 

1.  In  good  acts,  God  operates  on  the  agent  and  his 
agency  comes  into  play. 

2.  In  evil  acts,  God  allows  the  agent  to  carry  out 
his  own  will. 

3.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  three  men. 

One  is  induced  by  rational  persuasion  to  yield  his  will 
to  God  and  obey  him;  He  has  exercised  his  free  agency. 

Another  not  yielding  to  ordinary  persuasion,  is  sover¬ 
eignly  regenerated  by  God’s  supreme  and  gracious  power, 
given  a  new  nature  in  harmony  with  God,  and  does  his 
will  out  of  a  new  heart.  He  was  not  an  agent  in  his  re¬ 
generation  but  was  and  is  in  every  act  of  his  life. 

A  third  yields  to  no  persuasion  ordinary  or  extra¬ 
ordinary.  God  allows  him  to  take  his  own  chosen  way. 
He  also  is  a  free  agent  in  his  sin. 

It  is  often  said  that  foreknowledge  is  inconsistent 
with  free  agency;  that  if  anything  is  foreknown  it  can¬ 
not  be  free ;  that  foreknowledge  requires  certainty  and  cer¬ 
tainty  negatives  freedom.  But  this  is  far  from  being  true. 


105 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 

If  I  could  foreknow  that  I  would  go  to  New  York  to¬ 
morrow,  my  going  would  be  none  the  less  a  free  act.  If 
I  could  foresee,  by  certain  preparations,  and  discoverable 
intentions,  that  my  neighbor  would  commit  a  crime,  and 
if  he  should  be  ignorant  of  my  foreknowledge,  would  he 
not  be  free  in  the  act? 

And  if  God  foreknows  what  he  is  going  to  do,  is  he 
therefore  not  a  free  agent? 

Foreknowledge  is  therefore  not  inconsistent  with  free 
agency;  and  certainty  is  not  equivalent  to  necessity. 


Section  VIII.  The  Doctrine  of  Election. 
This  subject  is  treated  in  Soteriology. 


Chapter  VII.  The  Works  of  God. 


Section  I.  Creation. 

1.  The  lact  of  a  creation. 

In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth. 

The  Bible  puts  the  fact  of  a  creation  in  its  very  first 
statement. 

(a)  The  purpose  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
not  to  teach  science. 

It  is  not  intended  to  be  a  text  book  on  Geology,  As¬ 
tronomy  or  on  any  other  of  the  natural  sciences.  We  are 
not  to  expect  scientific  minutia,  nor  detailed  scientific  de¬ 
scription,  nor  technical  scientific  terms. 

It  does  not  inform  us  of  the  movements  of  the  heav¬ 
enly  bodies,  distances,  size,  specific  gravity,  elemental  com¬ 
position,  etc.  No  attempt  is  made  to  instruct  us  in  de¬ 
tails  of  natural  history.  We  would  not  go  to  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  to  study  Botany,  Zo-ology,  Chemistry, 
etc. 

But  whatever  is  said  of  the  great  events  of  the  crea¬ 
tive  week  is  so  said  as  not  to  conflict  with  the  teachings 
of  science, 


106 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


The  specific  purpose  of  Genesis  I,  is  to  introduce  the 
story  of  redemption. 

Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersol  made  much  ado  about  Moses’ 
mistake  in  crowding  the  whole  subject  of  Astronomy  in¬ 
to  five  words:  “He  made  the  stars  also.” 

What  a  shameful  misappreciation  of  the  glorious 
heavens!  But  this  was  a  mistake  of  Ingersol  and  not 
of  Moses.  The  author  of  Genesis  was  not  teaching  As¬ 
tronomy;  he  was  showing  as  a  necessary  starting  point, 
that  God  was  first  of  all  and  above  all  and  creator  of  all, 
and  this  he  could  do  in  five  words  as  well  as  in  five  volumes. 

This  much  was  pertinent  enough  in  an  age  when  men 
were  tempted  to  worship  the  stars.  Genesis  shows  that 
the  heavenly  bodies  were  but  creatures.  God  was  the 
Creator,  and  he  alone  worthy  of  worship.  Take  out  of 
the  account  what  is  said  of  God  and  little  remains,  and 
that  little  meaningless.  In  a  day  when  the  world  was 
polytheistic,  Moses  was  teaching  the  Theistic  conception 
of  the  universe.  In  a  day  when  the  world  was  comparative¬ 
ly  scienceless,  Moses  was  writing  in  wonderful  conformity 
to  the  science  of  today. 

Dr.  Alphonzo  Smith  says:  “It  is  one  of  the  strangest 
ironies  of  history  that  this  first  chapter  of  Genesis  should 
be  singled  out  as  distinctively  unscientific.  It  is  the  one 
chapter  that  has  made  science  possible.  It  is  the  Magna 
Charta  of  science.  There  was  no  science  and  there  could 
be  no  science  until  men  recognized  that  unity,  order,  and 
progression  are  inherent  in  nature’s  processes.  How  were 
men  brought  to  this  recognition?  Two  routes  were  pos¬ 
sible.  They  could  accept  the  unity,  order,  and  progression 
of  Genesis,  and  on  this  presupposition  proceed  to  verifica¬ 
tion. 

Or  without  knowledge  of,  or  belief  in  Genesis  they 
could  experiment  indefinitely,  and  thus  arrive  by  induction 
at  a  knowledge  of  the  orderliness  or  potential  science  in¬ 
herent  in  nature.  Now  the  history  of  science  shows  that 
the  first  method  was  that  actually  followed. 

The  founders  of  modern  science,  those  on  whom  the 
great  nineteenth  century  scientists  built,  were  Bacon, 
Kepler,  Galileo,  Harvey  and  Newton.  These  men  believed 
that  there  was  ‘mind’,  ‘thought’,  ‘almighty  power’,  ‘design’, 
‘intelligence’,  ‘an  intelligent  Agent’  in  nature.  They  be¬ 
lieved  it  not  because  they  had  proved  it;  proof  came  later. 
They  believed  it  because  Genesis  affirmed  it.” 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


107 


Though  Genesis  was  not  written  to  teach  science,  its 
scientific  allusions  anticipated  by  3000  years,  the  best 
scientific  thought  of  the  present  day.  How  this  was  pos¬ 
sible  so  many  millenniums  before  modern  science  was  born, 
admits  of  but  one  answer. 

Furthermore,  science  has  never  shown  a  more  reason¬ 
able  and  satisfactory  basis  of  origins  than  Gen.  1:1.  In 
the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.  Here 
in  the  first  statement  of  the  Scriptures  is  the  fact  of  crea¬ 
tion. 


(b)  Creation  stands  opposed  to  the  eternity  of  mat¬ 
ter. 

Matter  shows  evidence  of  composition,  and  also  of  ar¬ 
rangement,  and  therefore  is  not  self  existent. 

Clerk  Maxwell  held  that  the  fact  that  matter  presents 
“the  essential  characteristics  at  once  of  a  manufactured 
article  and  a  subordinate  agent  precludes  the  idea  of  its 
being  eternal  and  self-existent.,, 

The  modern  theory  of  matter  that  claims  that  all  mat¬ 
ter  may  be  reduced  to  the  electron  and  its  complement 
of  positive  electricity  removes  still  farther  the  idea  of  its 
eternity. 

Further  if  the  physical  were  eternal  its  development 
would  have  been  complete  before  time  began. 

(c)  Creation  stands  opposed  to  emanation. 

We  think  it  derogatory  to  the  nature  of  God  that 
the  physical  universe,  and  especially  sinful  beings  should 
be  an  emanation  from  the  substance  of  an  infinitely  holy 
God. 

Further,  an  emanation,  partaking  of  the  substance, 
should  also  partake  of  the  attributes  of  the  being  from 
which  it  emanated. 

(d)  Creation  stands  opposed  to  the  non-existence  of 
matter  as  taught  by  Christian  Science  and  all  idealistic 
philosophies. 

(e)  Creation  ex  nihilo  seems  to  be  the  necessary  con¬ 
clusion  of  logical  thought  on  the  subject. 

There  are  but  three  possible  explanations  of  the  phys¬ 
ical  universe; — that  it  is  eternal  and  self-existent ; — that 
it  is  an  emanation  from  the  substance  of  God ; — or  creat¬ 
ed  ex  nihilo.  The  first  and  second  are  excluded  for  reasons 


108 


THEOLOGY  proper 


already  given  in  (b)  and  (c)  ;  leaving  the  third  as  the  only 
rational  position. 

Besides  reasons  already  given,  it  is  evident  that  the 
universe  is  finite  and  mutable,  and  therefore  not  eternal, 
nor  self-existent.  It  is  one  of  the  postulates  of  reason, 
that  whatever  is  eternal  and  self-existent,  must  be  infinite 
and  immutable.  Whatever  possesses  one  infinite  quality, 
must  possess  all  infinite  qualities,  else  it  would  be  at  once 
infinite  and  finite. 

Every  evidence  of  design  in  the  world  is  also  an  evi¬ 
dence  of  creation  oy  a  designing  mind  which,  or  who,  fixed 
the  design  by  the  creative  act. 

The  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  is  in  accord  with  the 
facts  of  nature  and  the  conclusions  of  reason. 

Some  modern  philosophers  are  disposed  to  object  to 
a  creation  on  the  ground  that  God  and  nature  are  cor¬ 
relative  in  such  a  sense  that  God  and  nature  must  be  con¬ 
ceived  as  existing  together;  since  nature  is  the  expression 
of  God,  and  must  be  co-eternal  with  God;  and  the  one  can¬ 
not  be  conceived  as  existing  prior  to  or  independent  of 
the  other. 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  this  looks  toward  pantheism, 
and  loses  the  transcendence  of  God  in  his  immanence. 

It  must  be  further  observed  that  evolutionary  pro¬ 
cesses  cannot  dispense  with  a  creator.  To  explain  a  method 
does  not  exclude  an  author.  God  cannot  be  banished  from 
the  universe  by  explaining  the  methods  of  his  working. 
It  must  be  kept  in  mind  also  that  the  problem  of  ultimate 
origin  is  not  one  that  science  can  solve.  Natural  science 
is  limited  to  the  universe  as  it  is.  It  is  not  its  province 
to  go  behind  the  matter  and  forces  of  the  universe  and  de¬ 
termine  what  caused  them.  To  determine  the  cause  be¬ 
hind  the  physical  universe  is  the  province  of  philosophy 
and  theology;  the  best  expression  of  which  is:  “In  the 
beginning  God.”  The  natural  or  physical  sciences,  such 
as  physics,  chemistry,  and  biology,  cannot  account  for  all 
that  is  in  the  world.  They  cannot  account  for  human  will, 
nor  for  sin,  nor  for  life.  Vegetable  life  is  supernatural 
to  the  dead  matter  beneath  it,  and  animal  life  is  super¬ 
natural  to  the  vegetable  kingdom.  Man  is  supernatural 
to  the  animal  kingdom,  and  unless  we  look  upon  nature 
as  a  closed  system,  we  are  logically  led  to  a  supernatural 
to  man.  The  lower  cannot  account  for  the  higher,  but 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


109 


the  higher  may  account  for  the  lower;  and  a  supernatural 
origin  of  the  universe  is  the  only  logical  conclusion.  But 
when  we  use  the  word  supernatural,  we  do  not  exclude  God 
from  nature,  nor  deny  that  he  is  there  all  the  time,  the 
doer  of  all  that  is  done. 

2.  Time  of  Creation. 

(a)  There  are  various  views  as  to  the  days  of  crea¬ 
tion. 

1st.  Long  periods.  The  word  day  sometimes  is  ap¬ 
plied  to  a  long  period. 

2nd.  Days  of  vision.  Days  when  the  writer  had  apoc¬ 
alyptic  visions  of  the  creation. 

3rd.  Twenty-four-hour  days,  successive. 

4th.  Twenty-four-hour  days,  not  successive.  The  be¬ 
ginning  day  of  a  new  development. 

The  last  view  harmonizes  with  the  mention  of  evening 
and  morning  as  composing  the  day  referred  to  by  the 
writer. 

The  Jewish  day  began  in  the  evening  and  therefore 
it  was  natural  to  place  the  word  evening  first  in  order  in 
the  periods  that  constitute  the  day. 

Again  this  view  provides  for  long  periods  between  the 
days  of  creation  and  therefore  has  all  the  advantage  of 
the  first  view. 

About  these  questions  however,  no  one  need  be  too 
dogmatic. 

(b)  Creation  in  Genesis  is  timeless  and  dateless. 

We  are  not  told  how  many  thousands  or  millions  of 
years  ago  God  created  the  world;  nor  how  long  the  work 
lasted. 

This  contrasts  with  some  of  the  ancient  cosmogonies 
which  assume  to  give  dates  and  times. 

3.  Order  of  Creation. 

(a)  Lower  to  higher,  nothing,  chaos,  order,  life,  high¬ 
er  life. 

(b)  Order  of  life  according  to  Genesis  and  Geology. 

Genesis  puts  plant  life  before  animal  life  which  would 

seem  to  be  the  natural  order. 


110 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Formerly  it  was  supposed  that  Geology  bore  witness 
to  marine  fauna  previous  to  plant  life,  which  seemed  to 
make  a  discrepancy  between  Genesis  and  Geology. 

Later  discoveries  of  graphite  deposits  are  said  to  show 
the  existence  of  vegetable  life  at  an  earlier  date  than  any 
heretofore  assigned  to  marine  life. 

If  this  is  so,  it  brings  the  order  of  Genesis  and  Geol¬ 
ogy  into  harmony,  allowing  for  the  fact  that  details  and 
minutia  are  not  given. 

So  great  is  the  agreement  of  Genesis  and  science,  that 
the  conclusion  is  amply  warranted  that  the  author  of  the 
one  is  also  the  author  of  the  other;  and  it  may  pertinently 
be  asked:  who  could  disclose  the  secrets  of  creation  be¬ 
fore  science  was  born  or  man  was  on  the  earth,  but  the 
omniscient  Creator? 

4.  Plarmonies  of  Genesis  with  Science. 

(a)  The  fact  of  a  beginning. 

(b)  Creation  by  intelligence. 

(c)  The  heavens  before  the  earth. 

(d)  The  unity  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

(e)  Original  chaos  of  earth. 

(f)  Duration  of  time.  Shown  in  the  Spirit’s  brood¬ 
ing. 

(g)  Light  before  the  sun,  from  the  nucleus  of  the 
solar  system. 

(h)  Creation  not  simultaneous. 

(i)  Breaks  in  the  continuity. 

(j)  Progression  from  lower  to  higher,  grass,  herb, 
tree,  fish,  birds,  reptiles,  beast,  cattle,  man. 

(k)  Vegetation  before  animals. 

(l)  Like  producing  like;  “whose  seed  is  in  itself,  after 
its  kind.” 

(m)  Man  the  last  of  the  creatures. 

(n)  Man  on  the  same  day  as  the  higher  animals. 

(o)  Man’s  body  from  the  dust  of  the  earth. 

(p)  Man  a  dual  being. 

(q)  Mankind  from  a  single  pair. 

We  hear  much  of  the  discrepancies  between  religion 
and  science.  The  harmonies  are  far  more  striking  and 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


111 


significant.  And  Moses  wrote  all  this  3000  years  before 
science  found  it  out.  The  great  geologist  Dana  said  that 
the  coincidences  between  the  narrative  in  Genesis  and  the 
history  of  the  earth,  as  derived  from  nature,  were  such 
as  to  imply  its  Divine  origin. 

5.  The  Creation  of  Man. 

This  subject  is  treated  in  Anthropology. 

6.  Creation  and  Evolution. 

(a)  Materialistic  evolutionists  deny  creation  by  the 
fiat  of  God. 

They  assume  the  eternity  of  matter  and  the  laws  of 
nature,  and  make  all  the  ordered  universe  and  its  animate 
forms  to  arise  by  natural  laws  and  natural  selection. 

This  eliminates  all  intelligent  design  and  purpose  in 
the  trend  of  the  world’s  life.  It  is  bald  atheism,  and  blind 
chance,  contradicted  on  every  page  of  nature  and  by  all 
human  experience. 

The  case  against  materialistic  evolution  is  this: — 

First.  The  difficulty  in  the  denial  of  a  First  Cause. 
It  is  vastly  more  difficult  to  account  for  the  ordered  uni¬ 
verse  from  a  materialistic,  than  from  a  Theistic  stand¬ 
point. 

Second.  The  difficulty  involved  in  a  denial  of  final 
cause.  The  teleological  trend  of  all  development  is  un¬ 
mistakable.  The  phylogenetic  history  of  the  world’s  life 
shows  that  a  definite  climax  was  in  view  towards  which 
the  whole  fabric  of  nature  pressed  on  and  forward  till  it 
reached  its  culmination  in  thoughtful,  purposeful,  worship¬ 
ful  man. 

The  earth  was  gradually  prepared  for  the  maintain- 
ence  of  life.  Life  came  at  length  to  use  that  which  was 
prepared.  The  lower  forms  of  life  were  steps  in  the  pro¬ 
cess  toward  higher  forms,  and  a  necessary  preparation 
for  what  was  to  ensue.  Accordingly  the  higher  forms 
appear  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  process.  Nature  climaxed; 
and  climaxed  in  an  end  for  which  all  the  rest  was  a  prep¬ 
aration.  Here  is  design;  here  is  purpose;  here  is  the  plan 
of  an  overruling  mind. 

Can  materialism  account  for  the  climax,  and  the  in¬ 
telligence,  and  design  that  wrought  through  the  process 
leading  up  to  it? 


112 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Third.  The  absolute  diverseness  of  the  attributes  of 
mind  and  matter  preclude  the  derivation  of  the  former 
from  the  latter;  and  this  derivation  would  be  essential 
to  the  scheme  of  materialistic  evolution. 

Fourth.  The  gulf  between  the  living  and  the  not  liv¬ 
ing  cannot  be  bridged  from  a  materialistic  source. 

Fifth.  The  fact  that  spontaneous  generation  is  a 
scientific  absurdity. 

Sixth.  The  missing  links  necessary  to  connect  the 
series  at  innumerable  points.  Before  materialistic  evolu¬ 
tion  can  be  proved  these  considerations  must  be  met. 

Prof.  Huxley  said  that  “if  the  theory  of  evolution  is 
true,  the  living  must  have  arisen  from  the  not-living.” 
Huxley  gave  up  his  own  attempt  to  derive  the  living  from 
the  not-living  and  consigned  his  “Bathybius”  to  the  limbus 
of  departed  shades.  He  also  honestly  confessed  that  no 
intermediary  link  between  man  and  the  monkey  had  ever 
been  found. 

If  organic  evolution,  that  is  to  say  the  development 
of  the  living  from  the  not-living,  should  prove  to  be  true, 
would  it  destroy  our  belief  in  God? 

There  are  three  related  theories  that  apparently  stand 
or  fall  together;  namely,  organic  evolution,  spontaneous 
generation,  and  the  correlation  of  the  physical  forces  and 
mental  powers.  If  one  of  these  theories,  or  this  trinity 
of  theories,  becomes  established  fact, — if  tomorrow  the 
chemist  in  his  laboratory  should  succeed  in  producing  a 
vitalized  substance,  do  we  thereby  lose  belief  in  an  eternal 
and  living  God? 

Different  men  answer  that  question  differently.  One 
avers  that  the  physical  or  fortuitous  origin  of  life  leaves 
no  room  for  God.  Another,  that  in  spite  of  spontaneous 
generation,  for  aught  we  know,  there  may  still  be  a  God; 
that  though  life  may  so  arise,  God  is  still  necessary  to 
account  for  the  material  and  laws  by  which  it  arose;  and 
who  can  eliminate  God  from  a  seemingly  material  or  for¬ 
tuitous  process;  or  if  not,  God  may  exist  side  by  side  with 
these  phenomena. 

If  a  material  organism  be  the  essential  source  from 
which  life  springs,  or  in  which  it  exists,  then  God  is  im¬ 
possible;  else  a  material  God  with  consequent  disintegra¬ 
tion. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


113 


But  that  is  not  all.  If  intelligence  implies  the  phys¬ 
ical  organism  with  its  arrangement  and  forces,  what  be¬ 
comes  of  life  when  these  elements  dissolve  partnership? 
And  what  a  pity  for  man  to  be  flung  into  being  to  go  out 
into  darkness  so  precipitately!  Absolute  materialism  is 
not  only  the  negation  of  God,  but  the  denial  of  immortality. 

But  there  is  no  danger  that  spontaneous  generation 
will  ever  be  established, — no  danger  that  life  will  ever 
spring  from  dead  matter.  That  is  one  gap  too  wide  for 
evolution  to  cross.  There  is  no  truer  axiom  than  this, 
that  life  can  only  arise  from  life.  Nothing  finite  can  com¬ 
municate  what  it  does  not  possess.  “Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit.” 

(b)  Pantheistic  evolutionists  assume  the  eternity  of 
impersonal  being;  developing  by  a  law  of  necessity  into 
the  universe  as  it  is. 

Intelligence  is  not  the  cause  of  the  process  but  the  re¬ 
sult  of  it. 

There  is  no  life,  no  intelligence,  no  personality  at  the 
beginning;  these  are  products  that  grow  out  of  the  eternal 
something. 

Like  Materialism,  this  Pantheistic  scheme  leaves  no 
room  for  intelligent  foresight,  nor  for  overruling  provi¬ 
dence.  Both  systems  stand  opposed  to  creation  by  the 
power  of  an  infinite  will. 

Materialists  in  assuming  eternal  matter,  and  Pan¬ 
theists  in  assuming  an  eternal  impersonal  something,  and 
further  in  rejecting  an  eternal  Personal  Being  as  first  cause, 
have  not  added  anything  to  the  rationality  of  their  schemes. 
If  anything  must  be  assumed  as  a  starting  point,  it  is  bet¬ 
ter  to  assume  an  adequate  than  an  inadequate  cause.  To 
put  chance,  or  blind  forces,  or  undirected  development,  in 
the  place  of  a  personal  God  as  the  cause  of  the  ordered 
universe  is  not  a  rational  proposition. 

(c)  Theistic  evolutionists  make  God  the  creator,  and 
evolution  the  method  of  his  working.  God  created  mat¬ 
ter,  gave  it  its  laws,  imparted  life  to  certain  forms  or 
germs,  and  by  controlling  providence  and  immanent  power, 
wrought  out  the  forms  of  the  world’s  life. 

Darwin  was  a  theistic  evolutionist.  He  said:  “There 
is  a  grandeur  in  this  view  of  life  with  its  several  powers 
having  been  originally  breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few 
forms,  or  into  one,” 


114 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Other  men,  especially  Haeckel,  made  Darwin’s  theory 
do  service  to  materialism  and  atheism. 

Theistic  evolution  is  a  vast  improvement  over  the  mat¬ 
erialistic  and  pantheistic  brands.  It  recognizes  God  as  the 
source  and  cause  of  all;  it  makes  evolution  the  method  of 
his  working;  it  stresses  his  superintendence  and  control; 
it  admits  God’s  transcendence  and  immanence;  it  sees  the 
purpose  of  an  intelligent  mind;  it  recognizes  design  and 
wisdom  in  the  world’s  forms  and  life;  it  finds  a  place  for 
man’s  moral  and  religious  nature.  Thus  theistic  evolution 
fills  up  some  gaps  which  other  forms  left  open. 

But  while  more  satisfactory  on  the  religious  side  it 
is  not  any  more  satisfactory  on  the  scientific  side.  And 
evolution  is  essentially  a  scientific  question.  It  is  to  be 
settled  by  scientific  investigation  rather  than  by  religious 
considerations.  If  it  does  not  justify  itself  at  the  bar  of 
science,  it  has  no  right  to  ask  acceptance  at  the  hands  of 
theology. 

Now  it  is  too  frequently  forgotten  that  theistic  ev¬ 
olution  faces  all  the  objections  that  may  be  urged  against 
the  other  forms  from  a  scientific  standpoint.  To  square 
evolution  with  religion  is  not  the  whole  problem;  but  to 
square  the  theory  with  the  obvious  facts  of  science  itself. 
Opposition  to  evolution  must  not  be  attributed  to  theolog¬ 
ians  chiefly.  The  most  eminent  men  of  science  have  given 
evolution  the  hardest  blows.  Even  theistic  evolution  should 
furnish  us  the  proofs  before  it  asks  our  assent.  Theistic 
evolution  has  not  furnished  the  missing  links,  has  not  filled 
the  gaps  and  bridged  the  chasms  with  series  of  graded 
forms,  has  not  reversed  the  law  of  the  sterility  of  hybrids, 
has  not  furnished  one  example  of  transmutation  of  species, 
has  never  produced  an  eagle  from  a  canary  nor  hatched  a 
rabbit  from  the  egg  of  an  ostrich. 

If  evolution  be  the  method  of  God’s  working,  there 
should  certainly  be  evidences  of  the  process  where  there 
are  none.  The  gaps  still  remain  unfilled  whichever  method 
of  evolution  we  adopt.  Theistic  evolution  has  not  removed 
the  scientific  difficulties,  and  it  is  on  the  scientific  basis 
that  evolution  stands  or  falls. 

(d)  Remarks  on  Evolution  in  general. 

1st.  Evolution  being  a  method  or  process  does  not 
undermine  the  doctrine  of  creation,  except  in  some  ex¬ 
treme  forms  such  as  taught  by  Haeckel,  but  assumes  it 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


115 


as  a  starting  point.  Prof.  Conklin,  of  Princeton  Univer¬ 
sity,  in  tracing  back  the  living  forms  toward  their  origin, 
comes  to  the  line  beyond  which  lies  what  he  calls  “mys¬ 
tery.”  The  Christian  would  say,  God. 

Properly  speaking,  evolution  does  not  originate  any¬ 
thing.  Its  sphere  is  subsequent  to  the  origination  of  the 
material  on  which  it  works. 

Evolution  cannot  account  for  the  origin  of  matter, 
force,  life,  the  animal  kingdom,  nor,  as  we  think,  the  species 
within  the  kingdom.  It  is,  therefore,  not  a  good  theory 
of  origins.  The  problem  of  ultimate  origin  is  not  one  that 
science  can  solve. 

If  as  Darwin  admits,  God  must  have  created  the  first 
living  things,  we  may  conclude  that  there  is  nothing  un¬ 
scientific  in  the  doctrine  of  creation.* 

2nd.  Evolution  was  at  first  claimed  for  material 
forms,  subsequently  carried  into  the  mental  and  spiritual 
realms  of  man’s  existence,  further  applied  to  the  Scriptures 
and  religious  literature  and  ideas,  making  the  Bible  it¬ 
self  only  the  product  of  the  cosmic  process,  and  more 
recently  suggests  that  God  himself  is  an  imperfect  and 
developing  Deity. 

3rd.  The  Darwinian  form  of  evolution  with  its  trans¬ 
mutation  of  species  is  burdened  with  so  many  difficulties 
that  it  has  been  rejected  by  many  of  the  best  scientists 
of  the  past  generation,  such  as  Agassiz,  Lord  Kelvin, 
Lionel  Beale,  Virchow,  Guyot,  Romanes,  Mivart,  Sir  Wm. 
Dawson,  Fleischmann,  Quatrefages,  Elie  De  Cyon,  and  is 
said  to  be  rejected  by  an  increasing  number  of  the  present 
generation.  Haeckel  laments:  “Even  Wundt  is  now  writ¬ 
ing  the  other  thing.” 

4th.  Some  difficulties  of  the  evolution  theory  will  be 
considered  under  the  topic:  The  Creation  of  Man,  in  the 
next  part,  Anthropology,  Chapter  I,  Section  V,  4. 

See  also  Appendix  C. 

*  Note — Prof.  J.  Arthur  Thomson,  of  Aberdeen,  has  written 
The  Outline  of  Science.  His  reviewer  says:  “The  Outline  of  Science 
takes  evolution  for  granted  and  from  this  point  of  view  may  be 
said  to  furnish  an  arsenal  of  arguments  in  favor  of  the  scientific  as 
opposed  to  the  theological  view  of  the  origin  of  life.”  The  origin 
of  life  is  God;  according  to  the  theological  view.  Since  when  has 
science  proved  any  other  origin?  Is  Prof.  Thomson  a  radical  mat¬ 
erialist,  or  is  this  just  a  commonly  careless  use  of  language  by  an 
inaccurate  reviewer? 


116 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Suffice  it  to  say  at  present  that  to  replace  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  creation  with  a  vague  theory  of  development,  by 
mechanical  forces  without  intelligent  cause  and  design,  is 
exceedingly  unsatisfactory  both  from  a  scientific  and  a 
logical  point  of  view.  It  seems  much  easier  to  steal  the 
fact  of  causation  by  infinitesimal  increments  than  in  lump 
sum.  Just  make  the  time  long  enough  and  the  increments 
small  enough,  assume  a  shadowy  something  to  start  with, 
and  endow  it  with  a  tendency,  and  behold  you  get  rid  of 
a  First  Cause  for  the  whole  vast  universe.  It  just  un¬ 
winds  itself  out  of  the  adumbration  of  nebulosity.  But 
such  a  process  of  thought  is  a  mental  deception,  just  a 
trick  of  the  mind,  however  common  and  however  alluring 
it  may  be.  The  whole  is  never  less  nor  more  than  the  sum 
of  its  parts.  Causation  must  be  reckoned  with  whether 
distributed  by  bits  over  a  million  ages  or  concentrated  in¬ 
to  an  instantaneous  fiat. 

There  are  but  two  current  ways  of  accounting  for  the 
universe,  and  they  are  essentially  the  reverse  of  each  other. 
The  one  begins  with  the  tenuity  of  next-to-nothing,  and 
ends  with  life,  design,  purpose  and  perhaps  with  an  en¬ 
larging  God.  The  other  puts  God  first,  intelligence  first, 
life  first,  purpose  first  and  proceeds  to  the  universe  as  it  is. 

Some  think  it  is  scholarly  and  progressive  to  find  in 
fire-mist  and  nebula,  the  potency  of  all  that  is;  and  brand 
as  narrow  and  unscientific  those  who  join  the  Hebrew  seer 
in  saying:  “B’reshith  Elohim,”  in  the  beginning  God;  or 
the  inspired  apostle  in  laying  down  his  starting  point:  “En 
arche  en  ho  Logos.”  We  are  still  old  fashioned  enough 
to  believe  that  nothing  can  be  evolved  that  is  not  first  in¬ 
volved;  and  that  it  is  illogical  and  unscientific  to  make 
the  cause  the  approximation  of  nothing,  and  the  effect, 
the  sum  of  all  things. 

5th.  A  newer  form  of  evolution  supposes  that  each 
species  had  its  own  specific  primordial  germ  and  developed 
therefrom  without  transmutation  of  species;  but  developed 
variation  within  the  species. 

This  theory  meets  with  less  opposition  and  is  open  to 
less  dispute,  and  does  not  differ  greatly  from  the  ordinary 
view  of  creation.  It  avoids  the  difficulties  of  the  trans¬ 
mutation  theory,  and  deserves  more  attention  than  it  has 
received. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


117 


6th.  There  are  some  elements  of  truth  in  the  theory 
of  evolution,  namely: — 

The  preparation  of  the  world  for  the  abode  of  living 
beings,  in  its  geologic  and  climatic  conditions,  and  as  sup¬ 
plying  the  means  of  subsistence. 

The  fact  that  the  present  came  out  of  the  past,  and 
the  future  will  proceed  from  the  present. 

The  continuity  that  binds  the  ages  of  progress ;  though 
not  so  absolute  as  the  evolutionist  maintains. 

The  descent  of  one  generation  from  another. 

The  variety  and  development  that  are  evident  with¬ 
in  the  limits  of  species. 

The  fact  of  hereditary  transmission  to  some  degree; 
the  degree  is  a  disputed  point. 

7th.  The  question  of  evolution  is  to  be  settled  by 
science  rather  than  by  the  Scriptures;  since  it  is  essen¬ 
tially  a  scientific  question.  However,  if  any  theory  plainly 
contradicts  the  Scriptures,  we  are  justified  in  setting  it 
aside.  The  word  of  God  is  as  good  authority  as  the  theory 
of  any  scientist.  Evolution  has  been  made  to  affect  many 
doctrines  of  the  Scriptures  and  therefore  has  its  religious 
bearing.  That  is  the  only  reason  the  theologian  considers 
it. 

8th.  There  is  no  conflict  between  the  Bible  and 
science.  God’s  word  and  God’s  works  are  in  absolute  har¬ 
mony.  There  have  been  however,  many  conflicts  between 
mistaken  notions  of  both.  And  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  scientist  has  been  mistaken  as  often  as  the  theo¬ 
logian.  And  sometimes  the  theologian  has  been  mistaken 
because  the  scientist  taught  him  so.  All  the  opposition 
to  even  a  true  science  did  not  come  from  the  ecclesiastics, 
but  quite  as  much  from  the  scientists  themselves. 

The  views  of  scientists  are  perpetually  changing,  and 
there  is  no  agreement  among  themselves.  “Unstable  as 
water”  may  describe  the  scientific  viewpoint.  Some  scien¬ 
tists  are  perpetually  berating  the  theologian  for  his  re¬ 
fusal  to  believe  science.  It  is  not  science  that  the  theo¬ 
logian  disbelieves ;  but  extravagant  claims  of  would-be 
scientists;  conclusions  with  no  adequate  proof;  a  mount¬ 
ain  of  speculation  built  on  a  spider  web  of  fact. 

The  scientist  is  too  often  lacking  in  logical  power.  A 
course  in  logic  would  have  left  many  things  unsaid  that 
have  passed  for  science. 


118 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


To  gather  facts  is  one  thing;  to  deduce  from  them 
a  logical  conclusion  is  quite  another.  This  has  been  the 
chief  difficulty  between  theologians  and  scientists.  When 
any  fact  is  properly  established,  the  theologian  as  well 
as  the  scientist  will  readily  admit  its  truth. 

The  average  scientist  too  is  unfamiliar  with  theolog¬ 
ical  terminology  and  doctrinal  definition.  Even  when  in 
sympathy  more  or  less  with  religious  life  and  thought,  he 
has  not  always  been  trained  to  accurate  theological  con¬ 
ception  and  expression.  In  many  cases  therefore,  the 
scientist’s  presentment  of  religious  truth,  and  especially 
of  doctrinal  truth,  is  unscholarly  and  inaccurate. 


Section  II.  Providence. 

Shorter  Catechism  Question  11.  God’s  works  of  provi¬ 
dence  are  his  most  holy,  wise,  and  powerful  preserving 
and  governing  all  his  creatures  and  all  their  actions. 

Providence  embraces  two  elements:  Preservation  and 
Government. 

First  Element — Preservation. 

By  creation  God  called  the  world  into  existence  and 
by  preservation,  he  maintains  it  in  continuance. 

God’s  upholding  power  is  as  necessary  for  continuance 
as  his  creative  power  was  for  existence. 

If  God  should  withdraw  his  preserving  power,  all 
created  things  would  cease  to  be. 

(a)  Proof. 

Acts  17:28.  For  in  him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being. 

Heb.  1:3:  Upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power. 

Col.  1:17.  By  him  all  things  consist  i.  e.  hold  together. 

Ps.  63:8.  Thy  right  hand  upholdeth  me. 

Neh.  9:6.  Thou  preservest  them  all. 

No  created  being  is  self-existent,  not  having  the  cause 
of  its  being  in  itself.  It  must  depend  for  continuance  on 
its  creator. 

As  nothing  can  exist  without  God’s  will,  so  nothing 
can  continue  without  his  will. 

This  continuance  is  not  inherent  in  the  substance 
created  or  in  its  properties  or  in  the  general  laws  of  nature, 
but  is  due  to  the  constant  exercise  of  God’s  power. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


119 


(b)  Its  Extent. 

God  upholds  the  material  universe. 

He  continues  the  existence  of  all  spiritual  beings. 

He  upholds  wicked  men  while  they  sin  but  is  not  the 
efficient  cause  of  their  sin. 

The  universe  is  interpenetrated  by  the  divine  essence 
and  is  sustained  by  the  immediate  agency  of  God. 

(c)  Opposing  Views. 

Materialism  excludes  all  supernatural  agency. 

Deism  denies  any  providential  agency,  ascribes  all  to 
natural  law. 

Pantheism  assumes  the  eternity  and  self-existence  of 
the  universe  as  a  developing  system. 

Some,  as  Jonathan  Edwards,  Emmons  and  Hopkins, 
have  held  to  a  continual  creation  instead  of  a  preservation. 

According  to  this,  nothing  exists  from  moment  to  mo¬ 
ment  but  everything  is  created  de  novo  each  moment  by 
the  agency  of  God. 

This  is  not  according  to  the  Scriptures. 

It  would  extinguish  all  second  causes. 

It  would  destroy  the  responsibility  of  men  for  their 
evil  acts. 

According  to  this,  God  is  the  only  agent.  God  effects 
everytning;  the  creature  nothing. 

It  also  destroys  all  continuity  of  existence,  whereas  we 
know  ourselves  to  be  the  same  from  year  to  year. 

Second  Element.  Government  or  Control. 

God  governs,  all  his  creatures  and  all  their  actions. 

This  government  is  holy,  wise  and  powerful. 

1.  Proof. 

It  follows  as  a  natural  inference  that  a  personal  God 
who  created  the  world  would  also  govern  it. 

Man’s  sense  of  responsibility  and  dependence,  man’s 
quick  appeal  to  God  in  times  of  danger  show  a  universal, 
innate  conviction  that  God  governs  the  world. 

The  Scriptures  show  that  God’s  government  applies 
as  follows: 


120 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


(a)  To  the  physical  nature. 

Ps.  104:14.  He  causeth  grass  to  grow. 

Ps.  135:7.  He  causeth  vapor  to  ascend,  lightnings,  rain,  wind. 

Ps.  147:16,  17.  He  giveth  snow  like  wool,  hoar  frost,  ice,  cold. 

Acts  14:17.  He  giveth  rain  from  heaven  and  fruitful  seasons. 

(b)  The  animal  creation. 

Ps.  104:21.  The  young  lions  roar  after  their  prey,  and  seek 
their  meat  from  God. 

Matt.  6:26.  Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air,  etc. 

Matt.  10:29.  Not  a  sparrow  falleth  etc. 

(c)  To  the  events  of  human  history. 

I  Chi  on.  16:31.  Let  men  say  among  the  nations:  The  Lord 
reigneth. 

Ps.  47:7.  For  God  is  the  King  of  all  the  earth. 

Dan.  2:21.  He  changeth  the  times  and  the  seasons,  he  removeth 
kings  and  setteth  up  kings. 

(d)  To  individual  life. 

I  Sam.  2:6.  The  Lord  killeth  and  maketh  alive,  he  bringeth 
down  to  the  grave  and  bringeth  up. 

Prov.  16:9.  A  man’s  heart  deviseth  his  ways  but  the  Lord 
directeth  his  steps. 

James  4:15.  If  the  Lord  will,  we  shall  live  and  do  this  or  that. 

(e)  To  so-called  fortuitous  events. 

Job  5:6.  Trouble  doth  not  spring  out  of  the  ground. 

Prov.  16:33.  The  lot  is  cast  into  the  lap,  but  the  whole  dis¬ 
posing  thereof  is  of  the  Lord. 

(f)  To  the  smallest  particulars. 

Matt.  10:30.  The  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered. 

(g)  To  the  free  actions  of  men. 

Phil.  2:13.  For  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and 
do  of  his  good  pleasure. 

Ex.  12:36.  And  the  Lord  gave  the  people  favor  in  the  sight  of 
the  Egyptians. 

(h)  To  the  sinful  actions  of  men. 

II  Sam.  16:10.  Shimei  cursing  David,  the  Lord  said  unto  him, 
curse  David. 

Ps.  76:10.  Surely  the  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  thee  and  the 
remainder  of  wrath  shalt  thou  restrain. 

Rom.  11:32.  For  God  hath  shut  up  all  under  disobedience  that 
he  might  have  mercy  upon  all. 

Acts  4:28.  Herod  and  others  gathered  together  to  do  what¬ 
soever  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  predestinated  to  come  to  pass. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


121 


2.  Theories  of  divine  government. 

(a)  Systems  that  deny  divine  control. 

Materialism  from  its  nature  excludes  all  divine  gov¬ 
ernment. 

Pantheism  holding  to  a  development  by  the  law  of 
necessity  from  an  impersonal  something,  leaves  no  room 
for  super-natural  agency. 

Deism  holding  to  a  personal  God,  denies  that  he  inter¬ 
venes  in  the  affairs  of  the  world,  but  leaves  all  things 
to  the  operation  of  natural  laws. 

(b)  Some  make  God  the  only  efficient  cause,  and  as¬ 
sign  all  action  to  his  agency  denying  the  agency  of  all 
second  causes. 

J.  H.  Thornwell  in  his  earlier  writings  said,  “the  only 
efficient  cause  that  exists  in  the  universe  is  the  fiat  of 
the  Deity.” 

Dr.  Emmons  held  that  if  any  creature  were  endowed 
with  activity  or  power  to  act,  it  would  be  independent  of 
God.  He  says:  “We  cannot  conceive  that  even  omnipotence 
itself  is  able  to  form  independent  agents,  because  this 
would  be  to  endow  them  with  divinity.  And  since  all  men 
are  dependent  agents,  all  their  motions,  exercises  or  ac¬ 
tions  must  originate  in  a  divine  efficiency.” 

John  Scotus  Erigena  taught  that  “omnis  visibilis  et 
invisibilis  creatura  theophania.” 

Many  of  the  reformers  in  vindicating  God’s  sovereignty 
were  led  to  minimize  the  efficiency  of  second  causes. 

Men  searching  to  understand  what  matter  is,  have 
resolved  it  into  force  and  asking  what  force  is,  have  said 
it  is  the  power  of  God,  thus  from  the  scientific  side,  men 
have  been  led  to  attribute  all  activity  to  God. 

The  objections  to  this  are  evident: 

If  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  second  cause,  man  has 
no  responsibility. 

If  God  is  the  only  agent  in  the  universe,  all  evil  must 
be  attributed  to  him. 

It  contradicts  our  consciousness  of  personal  free 
agency. 


122 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


The  truth  is: 

God  is  the  First  Great  Cause. 

God  has  created  beings  with  the  power  of  self  deter¬ 
mination,  capable  of  action  and  of  originating  action,  and 
responsible  therefor. 

God  upholds  or  preserves  in  being  all  creatures,  else 
no  being  or  action  would  be  possible  to  them. 

God  governs  and  controls  his  creatures  so  that  they 
are  never  without,  nor  beyond  his  power  in  their  freest 
actions,  that  he  incites  and  promotes  all  that  is  good,  and 
limits,  bounds  and  overrules  all  that  is  evil. 

(c)  The  relation  of  Divine  to  human  activity. 

In  all  the  activity  of  second  causes  God’s  agency  is 
a  concurrent  force.  It  is  evident  however,  that  this  is 
not  the  same  in  all  cases.  The  concurrent  agency  of  God 
is  not  the  same  in  evil  as  in  good  actions. 

In  evil  acts  God  upholds  in  being  the  evil  agent,  and 
that  may  be  a  matter  of  mercy,  but  God’s  agency  is  not 
so  to  be  construed  as  to  involve  him  in  the  quality  of  the 
deed  only  so  far  as  he  prevents  and  overrules. 

On  the  other  hand,  God’s  concurrent  activity  in  the 
good  acts  of  men  partakes  of  more  efficiency. 

“It  is  not  you  that  work,  but  God  that  worketh  in 
you  both  to  will  and  do  of  his  good  pleasure.” 

How  far  then,  is  it  the  act  of  God  and  how  far  the 
act  of  man?  How  do  human  and  divine  actions  coalesce? 

It  is  not  that  it  is  God’s  activity  to  such  an  extent 
and  man’s  the  rest  of  the  way;  as  if  there  were  a  divid¬ 
ing  point  where  God’s  agency  leaves  off  and  man’s  agency 
begins. 

It  is  not  that  of  joint  action  as  when  two  horses  draw 
a  load,  the  combined  activity  of  both.  It  is  rather  that 
God  operates  upon  the  soul  inducing,  inciting  and  moving 
the  agent  to  the  exercise  of  his  powers  in  lawful  ways. 
While  the  act  is  that  of  the  individual,  it  is  nevertheless 
due  more  or  less  to  the  predisposing  agency  and  efficiency 
of  divine  power. 

It  may  be  appropriately  observed  that  no  free  agent 
is  independent  of  God,  nor  of  the  laws  of  his  own  being, 
which  God  has  ordained,  nor  of  the  laws  of  the  universe 
of  which  he  is  a  part.  The  opposite  would  give  us  a 
world  of  chance  in  which  all  freedom  would  be  destroyed. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


123 


Section  III.  Miracles. 

1.  The  definition  of  a  miracle. 

(a)  W.  G.  T.  Shedd.  “A  miracle  is  an  extraordinary 
act  of  God.” 

(b)  A.  A.  Hodge.  “A  miracle  is  an  event  in  the  ex¬ 
ternal  world  obvious  to  the  senses,  which  cannot  be  ra¬ 
tionally  attributed  to  any  agent  but  God,  which  accompanies 
a  messenger  from  God,  to  authenticate  his  message  as 
divine.” 

(c)  A.  H.  Strong.  “A  miracle  is  an  event  palpable 
to  the  senses,  produced  for  a  religious  purpose  by  the 
immediate  agency  of  God.” 

(d)  Dorner.  “Miracles  are  sensuously  cognizable 
events,  not  comprehensible  on  the  ground  of  the  causality 
of  nature,  but  essentially  on  the  ground  of  God’s  free  act¬ 
ion  alone.  Such  facts  find  their  possibility  in  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  nature  and  God’s  living  relation  to  it;  their 
necessity  in  the  aim  of  revelation  which  they  subserve.” 

(e)  Theodore  Christlieb.  “Miracles  are  the  effects 
of  God’s  power  in  the  domain  of  nature,  supernatural  phe¬ 
nomena,  the  effective  causes  of  which  cannot  be  found  in 
the  usual  course  of  nature  nor  in  the  spirit  of  man,  but 
only  in  the  immediate  interposition  of  higher  divine  pow¬ 
ers.” 

“Regeneration,  consolation,  peace,  etc.,  occupy  a  middle 
position  between  miracles  in  the  wider  and  those  in  the 
narrow  sense.” 

(f)  David  Hume — “Miracles  are  violation  of  the  laws 
of  nature.” 

(g)  Strauss — A  miracle  is  a  “rent  in  nature’s  har¬ 
mony.” 

The  term  miracle  is  variously  understood  and  defined. 

In  the  narrower  sense  it  is  limited  to  the  extraordinary 
act  of  God  in  the  external  world. 

In  the  wider  sense  it  includes  such  spiritual  results 
as  regeneration,  conversion,  and  sanctification. 

The  prevailing  usage  is  in  the  narrower  sense. 


124 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


2.  Classification. 

In  their  modus  operandi,  miracles  may  be  classified  as : 

(a)  Immediate.  Immediate  miracles  are  those  in  which 
the  agency  of  God  is  without  intervening  means,  as  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  the  world,  the  raising  of  the  dead,  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  these  miracles  no  means  are  evident. 

(b)  Mediate.  Mediate  miracles  are  those  in  which 
God  employs  natural  forces  or  elements,  sometimes  intensi¬ 
fying  natural  agencies  beyond  the  usual  to  effect  a  given 
end. 

Examples  of  mediate  miracles  are  the  flood  wherein 
the  subsidence  of  the  earth’s  crust,  the  breaking  up  of 
the  fountains  of  the  great  deep,  the  inflow  of  water  to 
lower  levels  effected  the  deluge. 

The  separation  of  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  by  a 
strong  east  wind, — the  feeding  of  Israel  with  quails,  some 
of  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  the  destruction  of  Jabin’s  army 
by  storm  and  flood, — perhaps  also  the  destruction  of 
Sennacherib’s  army. 

The  employment  of  these  natural  means  does  not  ren¬ 
der  the  event  any  less  a  miracle.  God’s  intervention  is 
seen  in  directing  these  forces  to  a  particular  end  at  a  par¬ 
ticular  time. 

3.  Are  miracles  probable  or  improbable? 

(a)  The  fact  of  a  free  personal  God  settles  the  pos¬ 
sibility  cf  miracles. 

If  God  is  the  creator  of  the  world,  no  one  can  deny 
his  right  and  power  to  intervene  in  it.  He  who  believes  in 
God  as  a  free  personal  Will  has  settled  for  himself  the 
possibility  of  miracles.  Once  admit  that  God  is  an  omni¬ 
potent  personal  being  free  to  act,  and  the  manifestation 
of  that  God  in  the  world  is  a  foregone  conclusion. 

But  the  manifestation  of  that  being  otherwise  than 
in  nature  is  a  supernatural  affair  and  therefore  a  miracle. 

And  that  a  free  beneficent  God  should  be  confined 
to  manifestation  in  nature  only,  contradicts  that  freedom 
as  well  as  the  fitness  of  things.  It  is  illogical  to  admit 
the  miracle  of  creation  and  deny  the  possibility  of  subse¬ 
quent  miracles.  What  God  has  once  done,  he  must  al¬ 
ways  be  able  to  do,  otherwise  he  would  cease  to  be  God. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


125 


(b)  If  miracles  are  possible  to  a  free,  omnipotent, 
personal  God,  are  they  equally  probable? 

Given  a  God  of  mere}",  goodness  and  love  on  the  one 
hand  and  a  suffering,  perishing  world  on  the  other  hand, 
what  is  the  probability  that  God  will  intervene? 

The  presumption  that  God  will  intervene  is  overwhelm¬ 
ing. 

Is  it  not  more  probable  that  God  will  take  special  meas¬ 
ures  to  rescue  the  work  of  his  hands  and  the  objects  of 
his  love  than  to  abandon  them  to  a  fate  without  end  and 
without  a  remedy? 

God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Son,  the  great¬ 
est  of  all  miracles.  Once  admit  that  love,  as  an  attribute 
of  the  personal  God,  and  the  miracle  of  redemption  will 
appear  a  logical  sequence. 

Admitting  the  facts  of  a  personal  God  and  a  sinful 
world,  the  antecedent  probability  of  miracles  becomes  a 
strong  conviction. 

Spinoza  denied  the  possibility  of  miracles,  because  he 
denied  a  personal  God. 

Hume  denied  the  probability  of  miracles  because  he 
denied  the  freedom  of  God,  and  imprisoned  him  in  the 
world  which  he  had  made  and  fettered  him  in  natural  law. 

If  the  miraculous  is  impossible,  no  prayer  need  be 
offered  at  the  bedside  of  the  sick  and  dying,  no  cry  for 
help  arise  in  face  of  threatening  death.  From  a  blind, 
deaf  process  of  nature,  you  may  only  await  your  destiny. 

If  over  the  coffin  of  husband,  wife  or  mother,  you 
long  for  the  touch  of  a  vanished  hand  and  the  sound  of 
a  voice  that  is  still,  you  are  rudely  informed  by  these 
false  philosophers  of  the  non-miraculous,  that  there  is  no 
resurrection,  no  recognition,  no  fellowship  forever. 

If  you  sigh  for  deliverance  from  an  evil  nature  you 
are  answered  by  the  apostles  of  uniformity  that  the  new 
birth  itself  would  be  an  unnatural  interruption  of  your 
naturally  sinful  development. 

If  the  supernatural  is  ruled  out  of  life,  all  the  holiest 
aspirations  of  the  human  heart  would  be  buried  in  the 
grave  of  the  miraculous. 

Let  the  heart  of  the  world  answer  which  is  the  more 
probable. 

Is  the  Creator  a  moral  or  a  non-moral  God? 


126 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Does  the  world  exist  for  a  physical  or  a  moral  end? 

Proper  consideration  for  these  questions  will  show 
how  probable  it  is  that  miracle  will  ensue  when  there-  is 
a  sufficiently  important  moral  or  beneficent  end  to  be  serv¬ 
ed  thereby. 

4.  Are  miracles  necessary? 

The  world  has  a  final  cause  as  well  as  a  First  Cause. 

The  final  cause  is  the  glory  of  God  in  the  beatific 
destiny  of  man.  If  that  final  cause  is  ever  to  be  achieved, 
a  miracle  would  seem  to  be  a  necessity. 

Sin  has  come  into  the  world  and  ruined  man’s  nature. 

He  is  now  a  fallen  creature,  under  curse  and  under 
bondage  to  sin. 

Salvation  cannot  come  to  man  through  the  operation 
of  natural  law. 

Left  to  himself,  man  goes  down  to  increasing  deprav¬ 
ity  and  eternal  doom,  natural  law  will  not  save  him.  Nat¬ 
ural  law  condemns  him. 

Natural  law  inflicts  the  penalty.  The  very  uniform¬ 
ity  of  natural  law  makes  the  sinner’s  doom  certain. 

“The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die”  is  natural  law. 

“The  wages  of  sin  is  death”  is  natural  law. 

As  long  as  fire  burns  and  water  drowns  and  gravita¬ 
tion  exerts  its  power,  natural  law  will  exact  the  utmost 
penalty  for  transgression. 

If  therefore,  man  is  saved  it  must  be  that  supernatural 
power  rescues  him  from  the  consequences  of  his  sin. 

The  revelation  of  God’s  law  and  especially  the  plan  of 
salvation  was  necessary  to  salvation  and  that  is  miracle. 

The  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ  was  necessary  to  sal¬ 
vation  and  that  was  a  miracle. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  was  necessary  to 
break  the  power  of  death  and  that  was  a  miracle. 

And  if  our  bodies  rise  to  enjoy  their  deliverance  from 
the  curse  of  sin  that  also  will  be  a  miracle. 

Miracles  are  therefore  a  necessity  in  the  plan  of  re¬ 
demption,  and  in  the  final  cause  of  the  world. 

5.  Are  miracles  a  violation  of  natural  law? 

Spinoza  said:  “The  laws  of  nature  are  the  only  real¬ 
ization  of  the  divine  will;  if  anything  in  nature  could  hap¬ 
pen  to  contradict  them,  God  would  contradict  himself.” 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


127 


Spinoza’s  fallacy  is  in  the  first  half  of  his  sentence. 
He  makes  God  and  nature  identical. 

If  there  is  no  God  but  nature,  then  of  course  there 
is  no  miracle. 

Miracles  do  not  violate  natural  law  because: — 

(a)  Natural  law  operates  during  the  working  of  the 
miracle. 

One  law  is  superseded  by  another  law. 

When  I  support  an  apple  in  my  hand,  the  law  of  grav¬ 
itation  does  not  cease  to  act,  but  another  power  prevents 
the  apple  from  falling. 

So  when  an  aeroplane  flies  among  the  clouds,  or  a 
steel  vessel  floats,  or  a  ram  forces  water  to  run  up  an 
incline. 

The  natural  laws  are  operative  all  the  time,  but  human 
contrivances  effect  their  purpose  while  no  law  of  nature 
is  suspended  or  violated. 

So  with  miracles.  When  the  leper  was  cleansed  the 
disease  did  not  reverse  itself  and  contribute  health  to  the 
body;  but  a  higher  power  counteracted  the  force  of  the 
lower  and  effected  the  result. 

When  the  dead  were  raised  it  was  not  the  law  of  de¬ 
composition  that  reversed  itself  and  bcame  a  means  of 
life,  but  a  higher  law  that  intervened.  Natural  laws  con¬ 
tinue  to  act  while  miracles  are  being  performed. 

(b)  Nature  is  subject  to  the  power  of  will. 

The  human  will  can  act  directly  on  the  human  organ¬ 
ism  (and  through  that  organism  on  other  things). 

I  say  to  my  hand,  “Move,”  it  moves.  “Do  this,”  and 
it  does  it. 

If  the  human  will  can  initiate  action  without  means, 
shall  not  the  immanent  God  produce  effects  in  the  un¬ 
iverse  with  no  means  but  his  omnipotent  will? 

If  physical  nature  and  realms  of  life  below  man,  are 
subject  to  his  power,  are  not  all  realms  below  God  subject 
to  his  divine  power? 

If  it  is  no  violation  of  natural  law  for  a  human  will 
to  act  upon  physical  nature,  is  it  a  violation  of  natural 
law  for  the  divine  will  to  do  so,  since  God  is  as  immanent 
in  the  universe  as  our  souls  in  our  natural  bodies? 


128 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


(c)  The  natural  is  the  product  of  the  supernatural. 

Since  the  natural  proceeds  from  the  supernatural,  it 
must  always  continue  to  be  open  to  its  influence,  else  the 
higher  would  be  conditioned  by  the  lower  which  is  un¬ 
natural. 

Natural  law  expresses  the  will  of  the  Creator  in  a 
generally  uniform  operation.  But  the  law  is  not  above 
its  Creator.  It  does  not  command  him,  but  he  it. 

“If  the  laws  of  nature  originally  proceeded  from  God, 
is  he  the  only  one  who  is  not  master  in  his  own  house?” 
— Christlieb. 

(d)  The  miracle,  once  it  is  effected,  takes  its  place 
in  the  natural  course  of  things  without  producing  dishar¬ 
mony. 

The  healing  of  the  sick  and  the  raising  of  the  dead 
did  not  abrogate  the  laws  of  health,  nor  disturb  the  course 
of  life  in  the  world. 

The  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ  did  not  disturb  the 
laws  of  birth,  nor  reverse  moral  obligations  in  the  spirit¬ 
ual  life  of  the  world. 

No  disharmonies  in  the  natural  laws  of  the  world  have 
been  introduced  by  the  advent  of  miracles.  The  laws  of 
nature  still  hold  and  operate  as  before. 

In  considering  miracle  and  natural  law  this  should 
not  be  overlooked. 

6.  Are  miracles  inconsistent  with  the  uniformity  of 
nature  ? 

Deniers  of  miracles  make  much  of  the  uniformity  of 
nature.  They  say  that  the  uniformity  of  nature’s  laws 
makes  all  miraculous  exceptions  unbelievable. 

(a)  We  admit  a  general  uniformity  in  nature. 

We  even  declare  that  such  a  uniformity  is  beneficent, 
otherwise  no  one  could  plan  for  the  future.  If  seasons 
did  not  uniformly  follow  each  other,  if  day  and  night  did 
not  regularly  succeed,  if  seed  did  not  bring  forth  after  its 
kind,  if  nature  had  no  established  laws  the  world  would 
be  in  hopeless  confusion  and  perplexity.  But  while  there 
is  a  general  uniformity  there  is  not  an  absolute  uniformity. 

If  nature  were  as  absolutely  uniform  as  the  objectors 
to  miracles  contend,  the  world  would  be  as  hopeless  as  if 
the  contrary  were  true. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


129 


(b)  Examples  of  non-uniformity. 

It  is  a  law  of  nature  that  cold  contracts  but  there  is 
a  beneficent  exception  to  that  law  a  few  degrees  above 
freezing  point  without  which  life  would  be  impossible  on 
a  great  part  of  the  globe. 

The  seasons  are  not  absolutely  uniform  in  fact  no  two 
seasons  are  exactly  alike. 

In  all  nature  there  are  differences  as  well  as  similar¬ 
ity. 

The  creation  of  the  world  was  a  break  in  the  uni¬ 
formity  that  preceded  it.  Each  species  of  animals  that 
appeared  on  the  earth,  and  there  were  scores  of  them, 
broke  the  preceding  continuity.  Man’s  appearance  was  an¬ 
other  break  in  the  uniformity.  Nothing  like  him  had  ever 
appeared  before.  All  through  the  history  of  the  world 
there  have  been  breaks  in  the  uniformity. 

So  too  the  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ  was  an  exception 
to  the  general  law  of  birth  in  the  world. 

Every  new  species  of  animal  life  was  an  intervention 
by  the  Creator;  and  the  incarnation  was  a  special  inter¬ 
vention  for  a  special  moral  purpose  that  justified  it. 

(c)  If  miracles  were  no  exception  to  the  general  uni¬ 
formity  they  would  largely  fail  of  their  purpose.  Just 
because  they  are  exceptional  do  they  excite  attention  and 
serve  their  purpose  and  teach  their  lesson.  If  burning 
bushes  had  been  as  common  as  budding  bushes  Moses 
would  not  have  turned  aside  to  see. 

If  the  plagues  of  Egypt  had  been  everyday  occur- 
rances  they  would  have  been  no  sign  that  Jehovah  was 
with  Moses. 

If  resurrection  were  as  common  in  the  world  as  birth, 
we  would  miss  the  supernatural  in  it. 

That  miracles  are  exceptions  to  the  common  rule  give 
them  special  value. 

(7)  Are  miracles  evidential  or  didactic? 

(a)  Much  was  written  a  few  years  ago  denying  that 
miracles  had  any  evidential  value.  It  was  said  that  from 
being  the  chief  supports  of  a  revelation,  they  had  become 
the  chief  difficulty;  that  the  more  the  Scripture  records 
abound  in  miracles  the  more  are  they  to  be  disbelieved. 

The  records  were  even  appealed  to  to  show  that  Christ 
disapproved  of  miracles,  at  least  for  evidential  purposes, 


130 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


for  when  his  generation  asked  him  to  show  them  a  sign, 
he  refused  to  give  it. 

It  was  therefore  customary  among  such  writers  to 
give  miracles  a  didactic  rather  than  an  evidential  value, 
if  they  assigned  any  value  to  them  at  all. 

(b)  Miracles  are  didactic. 

Admitting  the  fact  of  the  miracle,  the  didactic  value 
is  scarcely  open  to  dispute. 

(c)  Miracles  are  evidential  also. 

This  is  clearly  taught  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

Matt.  9:6.  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.  I  say  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  arise. 
Evidential. 

Matt.  11:5.  Go  show  John  again  those  things  which  ye  have 
seen, — the  blind  receive  their  sight,  the  lame  walk,  etc.  Evidential 
surely. 

Jno.  3:2.  Master,  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from 
God,  for  no  man  could  do  the  miracles  that  thou  doest  except  God 
be  with  him. 

Jno.  5:36.  The  works  that  I  do  bear  witness  of  me. 

Jno.  9:30,  32.  Why  herein  is  a  marvellous  thing  that  ye  know 
not  whence  he  is  and  yet  he  hath  opened  my  eyes. 

If  this  man  were  not  of  God  he  could  do  nothing. 

Since  the  world  began,  was  it  not  heard  that  any  MAN  ever 
opened  the  eyes  of  one  that  was  born  blind. 

Jno.  20:30,  31.  Many  other  works  did  Jesus  which  are  not 
written  in  this  book,  but  these  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might  have 
life  through  his  name. 

Jno.  10:37,  38.  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe 
me  not. 

But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works;  that 
ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him. 

All  this  shows  clearly  that  miracles  are  evidential  in 
their  character. 

8.  Is  the  age  of  miracles  past? 

It  is  sometimes  asked:  If  there  ever  were  miracles, 
why  do  they  not  occur  today?  Is  not  the  common  ex¬ 
perience  of  men  a  sufficient  negation  of  miracles? 

As  to  the  frequency  or  infrequency  of  miracles  we 
remark : — 

(a)  They  are  generally  connected  with  a  revelation, 
or  a  messenger  from  God.  Some  authorities  put  this  fact 
in  the  definition  of  a  miracle. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


131 


(b)  They  usually  occur  in  great  crises  of  the  world’s 
moral  life ;  as  for  example,  in  the  deliverence  of  Israel  from 
Egypt,  and  the  training  of  a  people  for  God,  in  Elijah’s 
conflict  with  heathenism,  and  in  the  manifestation  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

(c)  Different  conditions  may  make  them  more  fre¬ 
quent  in  one  age  than  another. 

(d)  They  are  not  to  be  expected  where  natural  law 
is  sufficient. 

(e)  They  are  not  to  be  expected  where  revelation 
is  sufficient. 

(f)  They  are  infrequent  in  an  unbelieving  age  or 
place. 

Matt.  13:58.  He  did  not  many  mighty  works  there  because 
of  their  unbelief. 

(g)  The  Scriptures  have  never  said  that  the  age  of 
miracles  is  past. 

(h)  Many  miracles  have  occured  subsequent  to  the 
days  of  the  Apostles. 

Tertullian  and  Origen  testify  of  miraculous  happenings 
long  after  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (429)  says:  “Many  heathen 
among  us  are  being  healed  by  Christians  from  whatsoever 
sicknesses  they  may  have,  so  abundant  are  miracles  in  our 
midst. 

(i)  The  Scriptures  bear  their  testimony. 

Jno.  14:12.  He  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall 
he  do  also,  and  greater  works  than  these  shall  he  do  because  I  go 
to  the  Father. 

Mk.  16:17,  18.  And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe: 
In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  demons;  they  shall  speak  with  new 
tongues;  they  shall  take  up  serpents,  and  if  they  shall  drink  any 
deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  them;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick 
and  they  shall  recover. 

Many  miracles,  signs,  wonders  and  judgments  are  fore¬ 
told  for  the  consummation  period  of  human  history. 

9.  Objections  to  Miracles. 

(a)  Spinoza’s  Objection. 

“The  laws  of  nature  are  the  only  realization  of  the 
divine  will.  If  any  thing  in  nature  could  happen  to  con¬ 
tradict  them,  God  would  contradict  himself.’’ 


132 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Spinoza's  premise  is  wrong,  his  conclusion  is  there¬ 
fore  wrong. 

He  begs  the  question  to  begin  with.  He  assumes  the 
thing  that  he  ought  to  prove,  viz.  that  the  laws  of  nature 
are  the  only  realization  of  the  divine  will. 

Spinoza’s  philosophy  determined  his  theology.  A  Pan¬ 
theistic  philosophy  leaves  no  room  for  supernatural  inter¬ 
position.  Denying  a  personal  God  of  course  Spinoza  must 
deny  miracles. 

(b)  Hume’s  Objection. 

Hume  says:  “Miracles  are  violations  of  the  laws  of 
nature:  but  we  learn  from  experience  that  the  laws  of 
nature  are  never  violated. 

For  miracles  we  have  the  questionable  testimony  of 
a  few  persons ;  against  them  we  have  universal  experience ; 
therefore  this  stronger  testimony  nullifies  the  weaker  and 
more  questionable.” 

Every  statement  in  this  passage  is  false. 

First.  Miracles  are  not  a  violation  of  natural  law. 

Second.  Every  day’s  experience  shows  that  man  has 
power  over  the  forces  of  nature;  much  more  has  God. 

Third.  The  testimony  to  miracles  is  abundant, 
through  many  ages,  by  many  people,  and  anything  but 
questionable. 

When  a  dozen  disciples  of  Christ  would  lay  down  their 
lives  rather  than  deny  the  facts  which  they  had  seen,  the 
testimony  cannot  be  called  questionable. 

Consider  the  character  of  these  men  who  bore  wit¬ 
ness,  and  the  purpose  of  their  doing  so,  not  for  gain,  pleas¬ 
ure,  preferment,  etc. 

No  personal  ends  were  to  be  gained  for  which  they 
risked  martyrdom. 

Fourth.  “Against  them  universal  experience” — that 
begs  the  question — that  is  the  thing  in  dispute.  Universal 
experience  is  not  against  miracles.  A  universal  experience 
must  include  the  experience  of  all  men. 

A  million  men  might  say  they  had  never  witnessed 
a  miracle;  but  their  testimony  would  not  be  valid  against 
a  comparatively  small  number  who  could  testify  to  what 
they  had  seen  or  experienced.  No  court  in  the  world  would 
accept  the  testimony  of  a  man  who  did  not  see  something 
on  an  occasion  when  he  was  not  present. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


133 


If  we  include  in  miracles  the  fact  of  regeneration  and 
other  spiritual  effects,  the  number  of  witnesses  is  innumer¬ 
able. 

Hume  argues  that  it  is  more  probable  that  the  testi¬ 
mony  is  false  than  that  the  miracle  is  true. 

Hume  looks  at  the  question  from  a  one-sided  view 
point.  His  Deistic  or  naturalistic  philosophy  warps  his 
judgment. 

He  leaves  out  of  consideration  the  moral  and  spirit¬ 
ual  needs  of  the  world,  and  also  the  fact  of  a  loving  and 
personal  God  with  a  purpose  to  save  the  creatures  of  his 
hand. 

A  moral  and  religious  view  of  the  world  puts  the 
probability  in  favor  of  the  miraculous. 

Hume  has  been  refuted  in  detail  by  English  apologists 
such  as  Campbell,  Paley,  Whately,  Wardlaw,  Pearson  and 
others,  and  by  German  writers  as  well. 

(c)  Objections  by  Rationalism. 

Rationalism  arose  about  the  middle  of  the  18th  cen¬ 
tury,  about  1750.  It  sought  to  offset  belief  in  miracles 
with  the  advanced  knowledge  of  nature.  Its  tendency  was 
to  put  natural  religion  in  the  place  of  supernatural. 

It  tried  to  explain  away  miracles  by  attributing  them 
to  natural  causes,  and  attributing  to  those  who  performed 
them  a  knowledge  of  physics,  chemistry,  pyrotechnics,  etc. 

Thunder  and  lightning  were  thought  sufficient  to  ex¬ 
plain  the  miracles  on  Sinai,  Carmel  and  the  voice  at  Christ’s 
baptism. 

The  loaves  and  fishes  were  not  multiplied,  but  the 
example  of  the  lad  induced  others  to  share  their  supplies, 
etc.,  etc. 

All  this  was  in  sheer  disregard  of  the  record  for  which 
the  rationalists  had  no  respect. 

Radical  Rationalism  rejected  revelation  and  exalted 
human  reason  as  sufficient  to  discover  God  and  all  human 
duty. 

Reason  was  the  sole  authority  and  happiness  the  chief 
end  of  man.  But  human  nature  degenerated  by  sin,  is  not 
sufficient  for  itself  without  instruction  and  education  by 
God.  That  reason  is  insufficient  for  human  guidance  is 
proved  by  the  condition  of  the  whole  heathen  world. 


134 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


Paul  says:  “The  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God.” 

After  all  has  been  said  that  can  be  said  for  innate 
ideas  and  intuitive  truth,  it  still  remains  true  that  reason 
is  essentially  a  faculty,  a  receptive  faculty  whose  function 
is  to  hear,  learn  and  embrace  the  truth  received  from 
without  and  above. 

If  God  can  reveal  himself  in  nature  in  its  ordinary 
forms  and  phases,  why  can  he  not  reveal  himself  for  special 
ends  by  unusual  phases  of  nature  or  without  means  of 
any  kind? 

This  form  of  rationalism  was  Deistic  and  all  the  arg¬ 
uments  against  Deism  and  all  the  reasons  for  the  insuf- 
fiency  of  natural  theology  hold  against  this  form  of 
Rationalism. 

(d)  Kant  (1724-1804)  and  Fichte  (1762-1814)  raised 
the  objection  to  direct  revelation  that  even  if  it  should  occur 
no  one  could  distinguish  between  a  divine  communication 
and  the  subjective  operation  of  his  own  intellect. 

To  this  it  is  answered,  first  that  all  revelation  was  not 
internal,  many  revelations  were  given  by  outward  means 
such  as  theophanies,  angelic  appearances,  etc. 

And  second,  the  recipients  of  revelations  do  decidedly 
distinguish  between  their  own  thoughts  and  the  revelation. 

Prophets  strove  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  rev¬ 
elations  they  had  received. 

I  Peter  1:10,11.  Of  which  salvation  the  prophets  have  inquired 
and  searched  diligently  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should 
come  unto  you;  searching  what  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  who  was  in  them  did  signify. 

Gen.  17:17;  Luke  1:18;  Luke  1:34.  Abraham,  Zacharias  and 
Mary  were  incredulous  in  regard  to  the  promises  of  posterity. 

And  Peter  protested  against  the  revelation  as  to  un¬ 
clean  meats  and  Jeremiah  protested  against  his  call  to 
prophesy. 

Paul,  too,  clearly  distinguishes  between  his  own  words 
and  the  Lord’s :  “This  I  command,  yet  not  I,  but  the  Lord.” 
“But  to  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord.” 

(e)  Jacob  Grimm  (1785-1868)  supposed  that  God’s 
speaking  to  man  would  imply  that  he  subjected  himself 
to  the  changes  and  developments  of  time,  which  the  Un¬ 
created  and  Immutable  cannot  do. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


135 


But  revelation  implies  no  change  in  the  essential  na¬ 
ture  of  God.  Revelation  itself  may  be  marked  by  develop¬ 
ment,  and  God  may  reveal  himself  more  and  more  while 
the  essence  of  the  Divine  nature  is  unchanged  and  un¬ 
disturbed. 

(f)  Schenkel  (1813-1885)  declared  that  a  supposed 
revelation  by  theophanies  and  angelic  agencies  destroys 
the  spiritual  conception  of  God  by  mixing  up  his  manifes¬ 
tation  with  the  alternations  of  material  phenomena. 

If  creation  is  possible  to  a  spiritual  God,  theophanic 
revelation  cannot  be  less  so.  If  the  former  does  not  de¬ 
stroy  the  true  idea  of  God,  surely  the  latter  should  not. 

Man  acts  on  and  through  material  forms,  why  deny 
such  prerogatives  to  God? 

Moreover,  man  is  largely  appealed  to  by  material  phe¬ 
nomena,  why  should  God  not  reach  him  through  these  nat¬ 
ural  channels? 

(g)  David  Strauss  (1808-1874)  says:  “We  now  know 
for  certain  at  least  what  Jesus  was  not  and  what  he  did 
not  do,  viz.  nothing  superhuman  nor  supernatural.” 

Strauss  refuted  the  rationalists  in  their  naturalistic 
explanation  of  the  miracles,  but  sought  to  overthrow  them 
on  other  grounds. 

Strauss  endeavored  to  undermine  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  Scriptural  records,  especially  the  gospel  history.  In 
his  Leben  Jesu,  1835,  he  attributed  the  gospels  to  the 
growth  of  myth  and  legend.  In  the  edition  of  1864  he 
put  more  stress  on  intentional  invention. 

According  to  Strauss  the  admirers  of  Jesus  wove  a- 
round  his  memory  all  the  wonderful  things  narrated  in  the 
gospels.  And  as  they  conceived  him  to  be  the  Messiah, 
he  must  do  more  and  greater  things  than  those  attributed 
to  Moses  and  the  prophets.  So  too  many  of  his  sayings 
were  adorned  with  a  miraculous  tale.  “I  will  make  you 
fishers  of  men”  grew  into  the  story  of  the  miraculous 
draught.  When  he  said  the  unfruitful  tree  should  be  cut 
down,  this  grew  into  the  story  of  the  withered  fig  tree. 
The  early  Christians  read  in  the  second  Psalm,  “Thou  art 
my  son;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee,”  hence  the  myth 
that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  etc.,  etc.  Thus  the  story 
of  Christ  was  expanded  and  decorated  till  the  Gospels  were 
produced  and  composed  some  time  in  the  second  century. 


136 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


All  but  a  meager  residuum  was  myth,  legend,  or  in¬ 
tentional  fabrication,  and  nothing  miraculous  or  supernat¬ 
ural. 

Strauss  was  ably  answered  by  Tholuck,  Neander, 
Ullman,  Ebrard,  and  others.  Strauss  was  the  fabricator 
instead  of  the  early  disciples.  His  whole  work  is  sheer 
supposition,  with  no  regard  for  historical  accuracy  or  truth¬ 
fulness.  All  investigation  has  shown  the  gospels  to  be 
trustworthy. 

All  evidence  shows  them  to  have  been  written  too 
early  for  myth,  and  legends  to  grow.  If  the  first  century 
was  such  a  myth-making  age,  it  is  unaccountable  that  no 
miracles  were  attributed  to  John  the  Baptist  who  was 
held  to  be  a  great  prophet. 

Strauss  pays  no  heed  to  the  historical  spirit  of  the 
first  century,  nor  to  the  statements  of  John:  “That  which 
we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you.”  and  the 
statement  of  Peter:  “We  have  not  followed  cunningly  de¬ 
vised  fables.” 

Strauss  must  also  explain  why  men  would  persist  in 
such  fabrications  to  the  loss  of  all  worldly  goods,  personal 
comfort,  and  life  itself. 

The  lives  of  the  Apostles  can  be  explained  only  on 
the  ground  of  their  intense  conviction  of  the  truth  of  what 
they  proclaimed. 

Strauss  was  a  disciple  of  Hegelian  philosophy,  and 
to  his  Pantheistic  conception  no  miracle  was  possible.  To 
him  all  miracle  was  a  sign  of  myth.  In  his  last  work 
he  endeavored  to  prove  that  there  is  no  conscious  or  per¬ 
sonal  God. 

He  was  unhistorical,  capricious,  and  often  ridiculous. 

After  these  years  his  views  have  few  adherents. 
Every  day  drives  new  nails  in  the  coffin-lid  of  the  Tubingen 
Theology;  and  there  is  scarce  one  now  so  poor  as  to  do  it 
reverence. 

(h)  Renan  (1823-1892)  in  his  “Les  Apotres”  says: 

“Miracles  are  not  performed  in  the  places  where  they 
ought  to  be.  One  single  miracle  performed  in  Paris  before 
competent  judges  would  forever  settle  so  many  doubts. 
But  alas  none  has  ever  taken  place.  No  miracle  was  ever 
performed  before  the  people  who  need  to  be  converted — I 
mean  before  unbelievers.  The  conditio  sine  qua  non  of 
the  miraculous  is  the  credulity  of  the  witnesses.  No 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


137 


miracle  was  ever  performed  before  those  who  could  thor¬ 
oughly  discuss  the  matter  and  decide  in  regard  to  it.” 

On  this  we  remark:— 

That  many  of  Christ’s  miracles  fulfilled  the  very  con¬ 
ditions  that  Renan  demands.  They  were  performed  be¬ 
fore  the  unbelieving  Pharisees,  and  before  sufficient  num¬ 
bers  to  verify  and  multiply  the  testimony. 

Credulity  was  not  always  the  easy  circumstance. 
Thomas  demanded  palpable  proof  of  the  resurrection.  The 
Pharisees  could  not  deny  the  miracles  but  attributed  them 
to  Beelzebub. 

Nicodemus,  a  learned  man  said,  “No  man  can  do  the 
miracles  thou  doest  except  God  be  with  him.” 

In  the  Jewish  and  Roman  world  there  were  certainly 
wise  and  learned  men  who  were  competent  judges. 

If  not  manjr  miracles  are  witnessed  in  Paris  it  might 
perhaps  learn  the  reason  from  Nazareth. 

Miracles  are  not  performed  to  convince  men  against 
their  will.  Some  possibility  of  doubt  generally  remains 
where  faith  is  required ;  giving  to  faith  an  element  of  trust 
that  differentiates  it  from  knowledge. 

God  works  no  miracles  to  convince  men  who  do  not 
want  to  be  convinced,  or  who  have  abundant  evidence  at 
hand.  “If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets  neither 
will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead.” 

In  1863  Renan  published  his  “Vie  de  Jesus,”  in  which 
the  historicity  of  the  Gospels  was  evaporated  into  poetic 
fancy. 

Both  Strauss  and  Renan  built  their  works  on  creative 
imagination. 

To  conjecture  how  a  thing  might  have  been  is  not  to 
prove  how  it  was. 

(i)  Celsus  the  heathen  of  the  second  century, 
Reimarus  (1694-1768),  Voltaire  and  other  deists  accused 
Jesus  Christ  or  else  the  Gospel  writers  with  intentional 
fraud. 

This  is  refuted  by  a  single  question:  How  could  the 
regeneration  of  the  world  proceed  from  an  immoral  de¬ 
ceiver?  Or  how  could  a  few  fraudulent  men  give  to  the 
world  the  loftiest,  purest,  most  spiritual  movement  the 
world  has  ever  known  ! 


138 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


(j)  Others  have  said  that  Christ  was  self  deceived, 
or  the  disciples  deceived  in  regard  to  him.  Then  we  are 
to  believe  that  the  Greek  and  Roman  world  and  the  high 
civilization  of  the  present  day  were  imposed  upon  by  a 
few  ignorant  Galilean  fisherman  who  were  themselves  de¬ 
ceived,  and  that  our  great  educational  institutions,  our 
Christian  civilization,  and  the  moral  power  of  Christianity 
are  all  the  product  of  a  mistake,  or  due  to  the  fabrications 
of  a  few  dreamers. 

(k)  It  has  been  urged  that  miracles  imply  imperfec¬ 
tion  in  the  original  plan  therefore  inconsistent  with  God’s 
omniscience ;  that  it  is  charging  the  Almighty  with  mistakes 
in  the  work  of  his  hands.  Is  the  work  of  God  so  faulty 
that  he  must  intervene  to  mend  its  mechanism,  as  a  poor 
mechanic  would  do  to  his  faulty  construction? 

This  overlooks  the  distinction  between  the  works  of 
God  as  they  came  from  his  hand  and  as  subsequently  ruined 
by  sin. 

Miracle  is  not  an  attempt  to  mend  a  faulty  construction 
but  to  restore  it  to  its  original  perfection. 

(l)  It  has  been  said  that  since  no  moral  character 
attaches  to  a  miracle,  it  has  no  rightful  place  in  a  moral 
system. 

But  the  miracle  is  not  without  value  to  moral  life. 
It  is  of  utmost  value  to  know  that  he  whom  we  trust  for 
moral  deliverance  has  demonstrated  his  supremacy  over  all 
nature,  disease,  death  itself,  and  demons  and  Satan,  and 
therefore  is  sufficient  for  our  spiritual  needs. 

(m)  The  denial  of  miracles  is  not  based  on  historical 
criticism  but  upon  a  priori  assumptions,  or  prejudice  a- 
gainst  the  supernatural. 

10.  Special  arguments  for  miracles. 

(a)  The  denial  of  miracles  is  the  denial  of  a  free, 
living,  personal  God. 

(b)  The  denial  of  a  free  living  personal  God  sub¬ 
verts  all  religion  and  all  moral  life.  If  no  miracle  we  have 
either  no  salvation,  or  no  other  life  than  this,  and  no 
barrier  to  the  grossest  materialism.  Men  will  neither  fear, 
love  or  serve  what  has  no  power  over  them  or  relation  to 
them. 


THEOLOGY  PROPER 


139 


(c)  If  no  miracle,  Christ  was  not  incarnate  God, 
never  rose  from  the  grave  and  offers  no  hope  for  the  fu¬ 
ture. 

(d)  If  no  miracle,  all  things  in  nature  and  history 
must  be  explained  on  the  basis  of  natural  law,  which  would 
involve  greater  difficulties  than  belief  in  miracles.  If  no 
miracle,  there  was  no  creation  and  the  world  is  eternal; 
no  preservation  or  providence  and  the  world  has  continued 
itself  in  existence,  or  is  the  favorite  of  mere  chance. 

If  no  creation,  man  and  all  life  is  the  product  of  spon¬ 
taneous  generation,  a  scientific  absurdity. 

If  no  miracle,  we  must  explain  the  fact  of  Israel,  her 
laws,  and  institutions;  the  Bible;  prophecy;  Christ  and  his 
character  and  teachings ;  the  disciples  and  their  convictions ; 
the  Christian  Church  and  its  work  in  the  world ;  Christian¬ 
ity  and  its  regenerating  power;  the  twice  born  men  and 
their  new  life; — and  explain  all  these  as  the  products  of 
natural  law,  chance,  deception  or  falsehood. 

By  denying  miracles  we  are  compelled  to  believe  in 
less  believable  prodigies. 

(e)  He  who  has  once  been  the  subject  of  regene¬ 
rating  grace  and  has  experienced  the  saving  power  of  God, 
and  lives  in  communion  with  him,  will  have  little  difficulty 
in  believing  in  miracles. 

(f)  If  Jesus  Christ  is  a  divine  being,  then  he  is  him¬ 
self  the  greatest  miracle;  and  it  would  be  incredible  if  he 
wrought  no  miracles.  The  miraculous  is  but  the  natural 
expression  of  Christ’s  true  nature. 


PART  THIRD,  ANTHROPOLOGY. 
Index  Page. 

Definition. 


Chapter  I.  The  Origin  of  Man. 


Section  I. 
Section  II. 
Section  III. 
Section  IV. 

Section  V. 
Section  VI. 
Section  VII. 
Section  VIII. 


Not  Pre-existence. 

Not  Emanation. 

Not  a  Form  of  God. 

Not  the  Product  of  Spontaneous  Gene¬ 
ration. 

Not  Accounted  for  by  Evolution. 
Evolution  and  the  Scriptures. 

A  Newer  form  of  Evolution. 

Man  Created. 


Chapter  II.  The  Descent  or  Propagation  of  Man. 


Section  I.  Creationism. 

Section  II.  Traducianism. 

Chapter  III.  The  Antiquity  of  Man. 


Section  I.  How  long  has  man  lived  on  the  earth? 
Section  II.  Reasons  assigned  for  a  great  antiquity. 

Chapter  IV.  The  Nature  of  Man. 


Section  I.  Dychotomy. 

Section  II.  Trichotomy. 

Section  III.  The  Unity  of  the  Soul. 

Section  IV.  Relation  of  Soul  to  Soul. 
Section  V.  Free  Agency. 


Chapter  V.  The  Original  State  of  Man. 


Section 

Section 

Section 

Section 

Section 


I.  As  to  His  Body. 

II.  As  to  His  Soul. 

III.  Pelagian  View  as  to  Man’s  Original 

State. 

IV.  Romish  View  as  to  Man’s  Original  State. 

V.  The  Evolutionist’s  View  of  Man’s  Orig¬ 
inal  State. 


—140— 


Index  Page. 

Chapter  VI.  The  Covenant  of  Works. 

Section  I.  Statement. 

Section  II.  What  is  a  Covenant? 

Section  III.  Evidences  of  such  a  Covenant. 

Section  IV.  In  the  Covenant  Adam  Represented 

Posterity. 

Section  V.  Probation. 

Chapter  VII.  The  Fall  of  Man. 

Section  I.  Was  there  a  Fall? 

Section  II.  Two  Difficulties. 

Section  III.  Observations. 

Chapter  VIII.  Relation  of  Adam  to  Posterity. 

Section  I.  Scriptural  Statement. 

Section  II.  Explanation. 

Chapter  IX.  Sin. 


Section  I. 
Section  II. 
Section  III. 
Section  IV. 
Section  V. 
Section  VI. 
Section  VII. 
Section  VIII. 
Section  IX. 
Section  X. 


The  Fact  of  Sin. 

Definitions  of  Sin. 

Nature  of  Sin. 

Original  Sin. 

Total  Depravity. 

Pelagian  View  of  Sin. 
Semi-Pelagian  View  of  Sin. 
Roman  Catholic  View  of  Sin. 
Arminian  View  of  Sin. 

View  of  Pantheistic  Theologians. 


Chapter  X.  Inability. 

Section  I.  Various  Views. 

Section  II.  What  Inability  is  not. 

Section  III.  The  Doctrine  of  Inability. 

Section  IV.  Proof  of  Inability. 

Section  V.  What  Can  Man  Do  in  His  Salvation. 
Section  VI.  Objections  Answered. 

Appendix  C.  Admissions  of  Evolutionists  and  Testi¬ 
mony  of  Scientists. 


—141— 


PART  THIRD,  ANTHROPOLOGY. 


Anthropology  is  a  word  derived  from  two  Greek  words, 
anthropos,  man;  and  logos,  discourse.  Therefore  Anthro¬ 
pology  is  the  doctrine  concerning  man.  Strictly  speaking 
concerning  his  origin,  nature,  fall,  and  sin ;  but  not  concern¬ 
ing  man  as  the  subject  of  grace,  as  that  belongs  to  the  di¬ 
vision  of  Theology  called  Soteriology. 


Chapter  I.  The  Origin  of  Man. 


Section  I.  Not  pre-existence.  No  record  of  it.  No 
proof  of  it.  No  memory  or  consciousness  of  it.  The  Bible 
shows  creation  and  that  all  sprang  from  Adam.  If  pre¬ 
existence  be  assumed  man  must  be  either  eternally  pre¬ 
existent,  or  created  by  God  in  that  pre-existent  state.  At 
any  rate  pre-existence  would  apply  only  to  the  soul. 


Section  II.  Not  emanation  from  the  substance  of  God. 

1.  Because  emanation  implies  that  the  substance  of 
God  can  become  corrupt,  and  this  is  derogatory  to  the 
character  of  God. 

2.  Substance  is  that  in  which  attributes  inhere,  and 
if  we  partake  of  God’s  substance  we  would  possess  the  at¬ 
tributes  of  God,  such  as  omniscence,  infinity  etc. 


Section  III.  Not  a  form  of  God,  which  is  Pantheism. 
God  and  man  are  separate  beings  and  are  not  to  be 
confounded  or  blended. 


Section  IV.  Not  the  product  of  spontaneous  gener¬ 
ation. 

Science  knows  no  spontaneous  generation.  Elaborate 
experiments  and  the  most  painstaking  efforts  and  observa¬ 
tion  have  ruled  out  spontaneous  generation. 


—142 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


143 


Section  V.  Not  accounted  for  by  Evolution.* 

1.  Evolution  is  a  process  and  a  process  does  not  orig¬ 
inate  anything. 

Evolution  itself  requires  a  beginning  and  a  cause. 
Evolution  requires  materials  to  work  upon  and  a  directing 
mind  to  guide  it  to  proper  ends. 

2.  Darwin  believed  that  God  created  the  first  form 
or  forms  of  life,  a  very  few,  and  all  genera  and  species  arose 
from  such  starting  point. 

3.  Later  evolutionists,  like  Haeckel,  asserted  that  life 
originated  from  the  molecular  motions  of  dead  matter  and 
developed  into  all  subsequent  forms  of  living  beings. 
Haeckel  said:  “With  a  single  stroke  Darwin  has  annihilated 
the  dogma  of  creation.”  But  Darwin  himself  would  not 
have  admitted  that. 

4.  Objections  to  Evolution. 

(a)  No  example  of  transmutation  of  species  has  ever 
been  known. 

(b)  No  missing  links  ever  found.  It  would  require 
thousands  of  links. 

To  establish  the  doctrine  of  evolution  the  missing  links 
must  be  found  between  the  cosmic  and  organic  forms  of 
nature,  between  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  be¬ 
tween  the  invertebrate  and  vertebrate,  between  the  lower 
vertebrates  and  the  mammals,  and  between  mammals  and 
man. 

There  are  vast  gaps,  requiring  thousands  of  links  to 
be  found. 

(c)  Science  shows  great  gaps  between  different 
species  and  that  each  came  without  known  antecedents  in 
the  lineal  descent. 

Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte,  University  of  California,  an 
evolutionist,  remarks : 

“The  evidence  of  geology  today  is  that  species  seem 
to  come  into  existence  suddenly  and  in  full  perfection,  re¬ 
main  substantially  unchanged  during  the  term  of  their 
existence  and  pass  away  in  full  perfection.  Other  species 
take  their  places  apparently  by  substitution,  not  by  trans¬ 
mutation.” 

^Disproportionate  space  has  been  given  to  this  subject  because 
of  present  interest  in  it. 


144 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


(d)  Not  sufficient  time.  When  evolutionists  assign 
millions  and  millions  of  years  for  the  process,  the  question 
may  be  justly  raised  whether  the  earth  has  been  habitable 
for  such  a  length  of  time. 

(e)  Sterility  of  hybrids.  Nature  herself  has  closed 
the  door  to  the  crossing  of  species. 

(f)  The  earliest  remains  of  man  are  of  high  develop¬ 
ment,  showing  that  man  like  the  other  species  came  upon 
the  scene  in  the  maturity  of  his  being. 

No  half-way  form  between  the  animals  and  man  has 
been  found. 

(g)  The  vast  superiority  of  one  kingdom  over  an¬ 
other.  There  cannot  be  found  in  the  vegetable  kingdom 
anything  from  which  the  characteristic  features  of  animal 
life  could  be  developed.  So  too  there  is  a  vast  gulf  between 
the  animal  and  man.  The  instincts  of  animals  remain  the 
same  from  age  to  age.  The  bird  still  builds  her  nest  and 
the  bee  her  cell  as  they  did  at  the  gate  of  Eden.  There 
has  been  no  progress  in  their  mental  development. 

(h)  Degeneration.  There  is  a  law  of  degeneration 
as  well  as  of  development.  Physically  modern  men  are 
inferior  to  the  antediluvians;  mentally  we  may  not  be  a- 
bove  the  old  Egyptians,  whose  inventions  rival  ours.  Mat¬ 
ter  disintegrates  frequently  when  not  subjected  to  art¬ 
ificial  treatment. 

Prof.  Geo.  M.  Price  likens  the  universe  to  a  great 
clock  that  has  been  wound  up  and  is  gradually  running 
down.  Many  leading  men  of  science  are  freely  using  the 
words  retrogradation  and  deterioration.  Some  have  sug¬ 
gested  that  the  ape  is  degenerated  from  man. 

(i)  If  evolution  is  a  cosmic  process,  as  scientists  tell 
us,  it  should  be  everywhere  apparent  and  in  actual  op¬ 
eration  before  our  eyes.  Why  has  it  gone  out  of  business  ? 
Has  everything  reached  such  a  stage  of  perfection  that 
no  advance  is  possible? 

(j)  If  intelligent  cross  breeding  has  failed  to  produce 
a  single  new  species  what  probability  is  there  that  blind 
chance  or  natural  selection  could  do  so?  Can  “natural 
selection”  do  what  intelligent  selection  cannot? 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


145 


(k)  Haeckel's  Embryological  Plates. 

Haeckel  had  to  admit  reluctantly  that  his  plates  il¬ 
lustrating  pre-natal  development  were  not  true  to  fact ;  but 
were  what  he  thought  ought  to  have  been  true  to  main¬ 
tain  his  theory.  He  was  exposed  by  Dr.  Arnold  Brass 
and  Prof.  His. 

The  theory  is  that  the  unborn  child  passes  through 
the  various  forms  through  which  the  race  is  supposed  to 
have  traversed  in  its  phylogenetic  history.  That  is  from 
the  protoplasmic  cell  through  invertebrate  life  to  fish, 
quadrupeds,  and  finally  to  man. 

This  theory  was  held  to  be  the  convincing  demonstra¬ 
tion  of  the  evolutionary  claims.  But  Haeckel's  plates  by 
which  he  taught  this  argument  were  not  true  to  facts. 
But  as  usual  “the  lie  got  half  way  round  the  world  be¬ 
fore  truth  got  his  boots  on."  It  is  admitted  that  there  are 
some  resemblances  between  the  foetus  and  some  animal 
forms ;  but  they  are  superficial.  •  One  can  see  such  things 
in  clouds  or  any  mobile  substance.  It  is  quite  to  be  sup¬ 
posed  that  the  human  embryo  in  its  early  stages  as  a  mass 
of  protoplasm  would  resemble  some  lower  form  of  life  which 
is  little  more  than  a  globule  of  protoplasm ;  that  elongation 
into  the  form  of  an  infant  must  necessarily  reflect  the 
shape  of  a  fish;  and  as  legs  and  arms  develop,  behold  the 
likeness  to  a  quadruped;  the  folds  in  the  skin  of  the  neck 
may  resemble  the  gills  of  a  fish ;  but  all  these  are  super¬ 
ficial  and  prove  nothing  as  to  the  antecedents  of  the  human 
race.  The  real  difference  in  cells  lies  in  that  which  is  not 
physical. 

Moreover,  what  has  been  accomplished  in  building  the 
long  stairway  from  the  amoeba  to  man  if  every  man  must 
begin  for  himself  at  the  lowest  point,  a  cell  of  protopasm? 
If  man  could  begin  where  the  animal  development  left  off 
there  would  be  some  utility  in  the  grand  stairway. 

But  further,  how  absurd  to  suppose  that  it  took  the 
cosmic  forces  millions  and  millions  of  years  to  do  what 
the  human  embryo  does  in  nine  months. 

Besides,  there  are  vast  differences  between  the  em¬ 
bryos  of  vertebrates  and  invertebrates.  The  articulata,  for 
instance,  in  embryo  lie  doubled  backwards;  while  the  vert¬ 
ebrates  are  doubled  in  the  opposite  direction.  If  embry¬ 
ology  is  the  recapitulation  of  evolution  why  these  differ¬ 
ences?  The  whole  argument  may  be  set  down  as  a  maxi¬ 
mum  of  assertion  on  a  minimum  of  fact. 


146 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


(l)  Evolutionists  suppose  that  nature  has  destroyed 
some  millions  of  forms,  which  if  they  could  only  be  found 
would  prove  their  case.  With  what  irony  nature  has  treat¬ 
ed  the  evolutionists  in  destroying  the  very  forms  they  need 
so  badly,  while  preserving  the  rest. 

The  Duke  of  Argyle  shows  that  in  1300  feet  of 
Jurassic  rock,  which  is  a  continuous  deposit,  nearly  two 
thousand  species  have  been  counted,  all  appearing  suddenly, 
passing  away  and  superseded  by  other  forms,  with  no  sign 
of  mixture,  or  of  infinitesimal,  or  of  intermediate  varia¬ 
tions.  This  shows  that  the  records  are  not  so  fragment¬ 
ary  as  to  obliterate  the  transitional  links  if  there  were 
any. 

(m)  Some  later  geological  discoveries  reverse  in 
some  measure  the  order  in  which  life  was  supposed  to  ap¬ 
pear  on  the  globe.  Pre-Cambrian  strata  and  fossils  sup¬ 
posedly  old  lie  in  snug  conformity  to  underlying  cretace¬ 
ous  strata  and  fossils  supposedly  young.  This  appears  over 
wide  areas,  reversing  the  evolutionary  order  in  loco. 

(n)  Recent  advance  in  biological  science  has  revers¬ 
ed  some  earlier  opinions  as  to  the  modus  operandi  of  ev¬ 
olution.  German  biologists  first,  and  afterwards  the  Brit¬ 
ish,  began  to  repudiate  Darwin’s  theory  of  natural  selection 
as  the  explanation  of  evolution.  See  latest  deliverances 
of  Bateson  and  Wm.  Berryman  Scott. 

And  now,  Mendelism,  the  science  of  reproduction  by 
cross  breeding,  removes  the  alternative  prop  of  the  theory 
by  showing  that  small  hereditary  accretions  do  not  ac¬ 
cumulate  to  the  making  of  a  species.  Thus  the  support 
that  evolution  formerly  received  from  biology  has  been 
taken  away  by  later  and  more  accurate  scholarship. 

Thus  natural  selection  and  heredity,  as  adequate  bases 
for  evolution,  have  both  gone  overboard.  Yet  some  pro¬ 
fess  to  inhabit  the  structure  after  the  foundations  have 
been  removed.  The  untenableness  of  the  situation  is  ap¬ 
parent.  The  only  possible  move  in  the  circumstances  is 
either  to  find  a  new  basis  for  evolution  or  abandon  it  al¬ 
together. 

(o)  Admissions  of  Evolutionists  and  Testimony  of 
Scientists. 

Evolution  has  been  repudiated  by  the  ablest  scientists 
of  the  world;  while  the  admissions  of  evolutionists  them¬ 
selves  are  sufficient  to  discredit  the  theory.  See  Appendix  C. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


147 


For  a  more  full  discussion  of  this  point,  consult  “The 
Collapse  of  Evolution,”  by  Prof.  Luther  Townsend. 

(P)  Arguments  for  Evolution. 

Rudimentary  organs. 

Reversion  to  type. 

Special  movements  of  muscles  and  joints.  Scalp  mus¬ 
cles;  wearing  off  heels  on  the  outside  indicating  arboreal 
life,  tree-climbing,  etc. 

Pathological  affinities  and  remedial  agents. 

Morphology.  Gradation  from  simple  to  complex. 

Paleontology.  Fossil  forms. 

Embryology  or  Ontogenesis. 

Anatomical  parallelism. 

Homogeneity  of  blood. 

The  two  last  are  the  only  arguments  worthy  of  serious 
consideration.  The  others  are  largely  puerile,  inconclusive, 
or  refute  what  they  are  assigned  to  prove. 

As  to  anatomical  parallelism,  it  is  inevitable  that  ani¬ 
mals  of  similar  form  to  man  should  reveal  a  correspondence 
of  bone  and  muscle  formation.  That  is  involved  in  the 
nature  of  the  case;  and  some  scores  of  parallelisms  can  be 
pointed  out.  But  when  all  is  said  it  fails  to  prove  genetic 
relationship.  If  similarity  proves  descent,  then  dissimi¬ 
larity  disproves  it,  and  there  are  vast  dissimilarities.  It 
must  be  remembered,  however,  that  in  a  world  which  pro¬ 
vides  a  common  nutriment  for  man  and  animals,  there 
must  be  some  similarity  in  the  structures  that  feed  on  it 
and  are  nourished  by  it. 

Homogeneity  of  blood  has  been  regarded  as  conclusive 
proof  of  descent,  or  of  common  relation  to  a  single  ancestor. 

Dr.  C.  W.  Saleeby  (Cambridge?)  in  his  book  “Evolu¬ 
tion  the  Master  Key,”  1905,  makes  haemolysis,  blood  dis¬ 
integration  (on  mixture),  the  proof  of  heterogeneity;  and 
declares  that  the  blood  of  the  anthropoid  ape  gives  the 
characteristic  human  reaction,  and  therefore  the  blood  of 
man  and  the  anthropoid  ape  are  identical;  while  that  of 
man  and  of  the  monkey  are  not.  The  blood  of  a  dog  in¬ 
jected  into  the  veins  of  another  dog  produces  no  corpuscular 
disintegration;  but  injected  into  the  veins  of  a  cat  disinte¬ 
grates  the  feline  corpuscles. 


148 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


To  make  a  satisfactory  proof  of  evolution,  the  physio¬ 
logical  chemist  must  show  homogeneity  of  blood  between 
man  and  all  the  lower  animals  since  they  all  belong  to  one 
race  as  per  the  theory;  and  also  a  homogeneity  of  blood 
between  the  different  species  of  lower  animals  since  they 
are  all  of  similar  lineal  descent.  Experiments  show  the 
reverse  of  this,  and  the  argument  breaks  down  where  it 
ought  to  be  strong. 

Further,  we  append  the  latest  declaration  of  expert 
testimony  on  the  subject  from  a  pathological  viewpoint. 

In  Nov.  1922,  Dr.  Joseph  McFarland,  professor  of  path¬ 
ology  and  bacteriology  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
addressed  the  New  Century  Club  on  the  transmission  of 
cancer.  He  told  of  transplanting  cancer  from  a  human 
being  to  many  species  of  animals,  and  said  that  in  no  case 
were  the  animals  affected.  He  said:  “You  may  transplant 
cancer  from  one  cat  to  another,  and  the  other  will  have 
cancer;  it  will  take  effect;  but  if  you  transplant  cancer 
from  a  cat  to  a  dog  or  from  an  animal  of  one  species  to 
another,  it  will  not  take.  That  condition  is  due  to  an  en¬ 
tirely  different  chemical  action  in  the  bodies  of  human 
beings  and  in  every  single  species  of  animal.” 

(q)  Some  advocates  of  evolution  have  pointed  to  cer¬ 
tain  forms  as  being  the  much-sought-for  missing  links. 

One  of  these  is  called  Pithecanthropus  erectus,  un¬ 
earthed  on  the  island  of  Java.  This  being  is  represented 
as  half  ape,  half  man.  The  cuts  shown  on  pages  of  scien¬ 
tific  works  present  a  rather  apish  physiognomy,  which 
however,  is  the  creation  of  the  artist.  The  sum-total  of 
the  find  consists  of  two  teeth,  one  thigh  bone,  and  part 
of  the  skull  cap.  To  construct  a  missing  link  out  of  such 
meager  materials  speaks  volumes  for  scientific  creative 
imagination.  It  rivals  creation  ex  nihilo.  No  one  knows 
if  these  three  bones  belonged  to  the  same  skeleton,  or 
whether  it  was  man  or  beast.  To  offer  such  proofs  is  tak¬ 
ing  a  long  chance  on  human  credulity,  and  dismisses  the 
author  from  further  serious  credence. 

There  are  certain  other  forms  called  the  Neanderthal 
skulls,  all  of  which  may  have  been  of  comparatively  recent 
men. 

Note.  Additional  discussion  of  Evolution  is  found  in  Part 
Second,  Chapter  VII,  The  Works  of  God,  Section  I,  6 — Creation 
and  Evolution. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


149 


Section  VI.  Evolution  and  the  Scriptures.  How  far 
do  they  agree? 

1.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  God  created  man. 

2*  The  Scriptures  do  not  declare  HOW  God  created 
man,  whether  instantaneously,  or  by  process  of  develop¬ 
ment. 

The  Scriptures  declare  that  God  formed  man’s  body 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground.  It  is  possible  to  understand 
this  as  brute  dust  as  well  as  inanimate  dust;  development 
of  man’s  body  from  the  animal  being  regarded  as  God’s 
way  of  forming  that  body. 

Some  hold  that  man’s  body  was  derived  from  the  ani¬ 
mal  form,  while  his  soul  was  a  creation  de  novo.  Others 
hold  that  both  body  and  soul  were  derived  from  the  animal 
but  by  special  superintendence  and  contribution  by  God. 
This  is  the  view  of  theistic  evolutionists. 

It  is  possible  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  from  the 
standpoint  of  theistic  evolution;*  but  impossible  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  materialistic  evolution. 

3.  Evolution  toward  the  goal  of  man,  requires  in¬ 
telligent  choice  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  the  process. 

No  evolution  is  possible  without  an  innate  tendency 
to  variation;  that  innate  tendency  requires  a  cause  and 
implies  a  purpose;  and  a  law  of  variation  that  can  persist, 
through  countless  ages,  and  myriads  of  forms,  till  it  reaches 
its  goal  in  “the  crown  of  creation”  forever  settles  the 
question  of  materialistic  evolution.  Through  all  the  forms 
of  life  “one  increasing  purpose  runs.” 

4.  The  question  of  evolution  per  se,  as  a  method  of 
divine  working,  is  not  to  be  settled  so  much  by  the  in¬ 
terpretation  of  Scripture  as  by  the  investigations  of  science. 
It  is  essentially  a  scientific  question  and  is  to  be  met  on 
scientific  grounds.  The  Theologian  deals  with  it  only  be¬ 
cause  it  injects  itself  into  the  realm  of  God’s  relation  to 
the  world  and  to  man. 

The  arguments  pro  and  con  are  many;  but  the  balance 
of  argument  at  the  present  time  seems  decidedly  against 
evolution;  at  least  in  its  Darwinian  form. 

*Prof.  A.  C.  Zenos  has  attempted  this  in  “The  International 
Standard  Bible  Encyclopedia’’ — Orr;  but  bases  his  belief  in  ev¬ 
olution  on  two  discredited  arguments.  Unless  evolution  be  true, 
the  labor  is  vain. 


150 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


5.  Evolution  is  important  to  the  theologian  because 
evolutionists  have  used  the  theory  to  reconstruct  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  Scriptures.  As  used  by  them  it  affects  many 
fundamental  doctrines,  e.  g.  creation,  man,  the  fall,  sin, 
Christ,  the  incarnation,  atonement,  etc.,  etc.  But  it  is  not 
a  legitimate  or  logical  process  to  base  a  conclusion  on  a 
hypothetical  premise. 

Lord  Kelvin,  one  of  the  greatest  of  modern  scientists, 
said:  “I  must  marvel  at  the  undue  haste  with  which  teach¬ 
ers  in  our  universities  and  preachers  in  our  pulpits  are 
restating  truth  in  the  terms  of  evolution,  while  evolution 
itself  remains  an  unproved  hypothesis  in  the  laboratories 
of  science.” 

It  is  an  axiom  of  logic  that  if  a  premise  is  a  sup¬ 
position  or  hypothesis,  the  conclusion  can  be  nothing  more. 
We  cannot  build  an  argument  on  a  mere  supposition.  The 
“if”  in  the  premise  remains  an  “if”  in  the  conclusion. 

6.  Evolution  has  raised  the  following  religious  ques¬ 
tions: — 

(a)  Whether  there  has  been  a  beginning  according 
to  Gen.  1:1,  or  an  eternal  becoming;  whether  there  has 
been  creation  or  eternal  development.  Haeckel  said:  “With 
a  single  stroke  Darwin  has  annihilated  the  dogma  of  crea¬ 
tion.” 


(b)  Whether  God  is  infinite  and  eternal  according 
to  the  Scriptures,  or  a  finite  and  developing  deity. 

(c)  Whether  God  is  supreme  or  one  of  many  beings 
who  existed  in  antemundane  times.  Whether  God  himself 
is  subject  to  a  higher  power  or  a  community  of  powers. 

(d)  Whether  the  Genesis  story  can  be  harmonized 
with  geology,  astronomy,  biology,  and  archaeology,  etc. 

(e)  Whether  man  in  his  entirety  was  created  by  the 
fiat  of  God,  or  his  body  developed  from  the  beast  and  his 
soul  created  de  novo;  or  whether  both  body  and  soul  were 
derived  from  lower  forms. 

(f)  Whether  man  fell  from  the  image  of  God  or 
rose  from  animalism  and  savagery;  and  therefore  whether 
sin  is  contrariety  to  God  or  merely  the  fact  that  man  has 
not  yet  arrived  at  full  development. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


151 


(g)  Whether  the  doctrines  of  Judaism  and  Chris¬ 
tianity  can  be  referred  to  a  revelation  or  are  the  outgrowth 
of  innate  human  tendencies;  and  whether  man  began  with 
fetishism  and  animism  or  monetheism;  whether  the  Bible 
produced  civilization,  or  civilization  produced  the  Bible. 

Ot)  Whether  the  Scriptures  are  inerrant  and  infal¬ 
lible,  a  revelation  from  God,  or  merely  the  record  of  pro¬ 
gressive  religious  experience. 

(i)  Whether  salvation  is  a  supernatural  intervention 
or  the  outgrowth  of  inherent  natural  forces. 

(j)  Whether  prophecy  maintains  its  predictive  ele¬ 
ment,  and  miracle  its  supernatural  power,  or  whether 
these  are  displaced  by  the  spiritual  and  dynamic  doctrine 
of  man  and  the  world.  Is  there  real  prediction  or  just 
the  yearnings  of  the  Hebrew  people  that  at  length  were 
realized  in  the  development  of  their  religious  life? 

Section  VII.  A  newer  form  of  Evolution  is  not  so 
objectionable. 

The  newer  form  of  evolution  supposes  that  instead 
of  transmutation  of  species  there  was  one  form  or  germ 
originated  for  EACH  species,  and  that  each  species  de¬ 
veloped  from  its  own  primordial  germ. 

Section  VIII.  Man’s  Origin  was  in  CREATION  by 

God. 

1.  Either  full  grown  or  developed  from  some  specific 
form  created  by  God.  Gen.  2:7  shows  a  mediate  creation 
as  regards  man’s  body  and  an  immediate  creation  as  re¬ 
gards  his  soul. 

Whether  the  mediate  creation  was  by  fiat  or  develop¬ 
ment  from  some  prior  form,  nothing  is  said. 

2.  Created  a  single  pair.  (Some  think  more  than 
one  pair,  e.  g.  Agassiz.) 

(a)  Bible  proof. 

Gen.  1:27.  Male  and  female  created  he  them. 

Rom.  5:12.  Through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  sinned. 

I  Cor.  15:22.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die . 

Acts  17 :26.  And  hath  made  of  one  (blood)  all  men. 

The  unity  of  the  human  race  underlies  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  by  virtue  of  Adam’s  fall. 


152 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


(b)  Language. 

The  great  similarity  of  roots  in  primitive  languages 
points  to  a  unity  of  language  in  the  earliest  days. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  early  Egyptian  was  derived 
from  the  Babylonian,  and  the  Babylonian  was  a  mixture 
of  Sumerian  and  Semitic.  So  too,  similarities  have  been 
traced  between  the  Chinese  and  the  Accadian. 

A  bear  in  Ethiopian  is  called  Deb,  in  Hebrew  Dob, 
in  Aramean  Debba,  in  Arabic  Dubb.  This  indicates  a  com¬ 
mon  origin  for  these  races  and  incidentally  shows  that 
the  fatherland  was  a  place  where  bears  are  familiar  objects. 

“About  170  roots  serve  to  connect  together  the  vari¬ 
ous  groups  of  Asiatic  languages  and  of  these  about  fifty 
are  still  traceable  throughout  the  entire  number,  that  is 
to  say  in  Accadian,  Egyptian,  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Mongolic 
speech  alike” — Conder. 

Unity  of  language  is  strong  evidence  of  unity  of  race. 

(c)  One  Blood. 

The  law  of  sterility  of  hybrids  does  not  apply  to  the 
human  race.  The  union  of  different  families  or  races  uni¬ 
formly  proving  fertile.  The  most  diverse  types  thus  prove 
themselves  to  be  of  one  blood. 

(d)  It  is  easier  to  account  for  divergence  from  one 
source  than  to  account  for  manifest  unity  from  diverse 
sources. 

(e)  The  tendency  of  scientific  thought  is  to  unity 
not  only  of  mankind;  but  also  of  animals  and  man.  The 
tendency  to  unity  has  even  run  to  extremes. 

(f)  The  mental,  moral  and  spiritual  natures  of  all 
men  are  identical. 

(g)  Differences  are  due  to  environment. 

The  Irish  driven  from  their  homes  two  hundred  years 
ago,  have  developed  a  prognathous  physiognomy. 

The  Jews  are  fair  in  one  latitude,  olive  in  another  and 
black  in  Africa. 

Missionaries  spending  years  in  Africa  have  changed 
several  shades  in  color  of  skin. 

Rawlinson  says  that  Negroes  are  not  represented  on 
the  Egyptian  monuments  before  1500  B.  C. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


153 


3.  Man  occupies  a  mid  position  between  nature  and 
God,  filling  the  vast  hiatus  between  the  material  and  spirit¬ 
ual  with  a  body  that  relates  him  to  earth  and  a  spiritual 
nature  that  relates  him  to  God. 

4.  Without  man  there  would  be  none  to  appreciate 
God’s  material  creation  and  none  on  earth  to  enter  into 
communion  with  God. 

5.  The  Creation  of  Woman. 

We  have  the  account  of  the  formation  of  woman  in 
Gen.  2:21 — 23. 

(a)  One  view  is  that  this  is  a  pictorial  view  of  some¬ 
thing  that  took  place  in  the  evolution  of  man’s  ancestral  line, 
his  phylogenetic  history,  by  which  the  sexes  were  separated 
from  a  common  stock. 

(b)  Some  one  has  supposed  that  Adam  and  Eve  were 
created  twins,  joined  by  some  cartilagenous  bond,  like  the 
Siamese  twins;  that  this  was  severed  at  an  early  period 
resulting  in  two  complete  persons  of  opposite  sex. 

(c)  Another  view  is  that  the  original  man  was  bi¬ 
sexual. 

The  Jews  have  a  tradition  that  Adam  was  created 
double-sexed,  and  that  the  two  sexes  were  afterward  sepa¬ 
rated. 

The  Hindus  have  a  similar  account. 

These  hermaphroditic  explanations  may  be  plausible 
guesses,  but  no  verification  is  now  possible. 

(d)  We  have  the  account  in  Genesis,  which  gives 
us  too  few  details  on  which  to  construct  a  theory,  and 
leaves  us  in  entire  ignorance  of  the  process  of  woman’s 
formation. 

The  Bible  has  little  to  say  for  the  purpose  of  grati¬ 
fying  curiosity.  All  it  sees  fit  to  tell  us  is  that  man  and 
woman  have  a  common  creator,  and  a  common  nature; 
and  are  supplemental  to  each  other  for  their  own  good 
and  for  God’s  purpose  concerning  the  human  race. 

It  is  not  important  to  know  how  woman  was  created; 
it  is  more  important  to  know  what  for;  and  about  this 
the  Bible  is  more  explicit. 


154 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Chapter  II.  The  Descent  or  Propagation  of  Man. 

Man  is  a  race  or  a  species.  A  bond  of  nature  unites 
all  mankind. 

Angels  are  sexless  and  therefore  are  not  a  race  or 
species  and  have  no  common  history  or  common  character. 
But  man  is  a  Yace,  descending  one  from  another,  and  all 
from  one  pair. 

Theology  does  not  consider  the  descent  or  propagation 
of  the  body.  That  is  left  to  Physiology.  But  the  theo¬ 
logical  question  is  this: — 

Is  the  soul  of  man  derived  from  the  parents  as  the 
body  is? 

There  are  two  views: — 


Section  I.  Creationism. 

This  view  asserts  that  the  soul  is  not  derived  from 
the  parents,  but  is  created  de  novo  for  every  individual 
born  into  the  world.  Because  of: — 

1.  The  indivisibility  of  the  soul  substance. 

2.  Scriptural  language. 

Isa.  57:16.  The  souls  that  I  have  made. 

Eccles.  12:7.  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it 
was,  and  the  spirit  to  God  who  gave  it. 

Heb.  12:9.  Fathers  of  our  flesh — Father  of  spirits.  (Observe 
no  “our”  in  the  last  clause,  therefore  not  our  spirits.) 

Zech.  12:1.  The  Lord  who  formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within 

him. 

Observe — These  passages  can  be  understood  to  refer 
to  mediate  creation  as  well  as  immediate. 

3.  The  person  of  Christ. 

If  Christ’s  human  soul  was  derived  from  human  kind, 
would  it  not  partake  of  our  common  sinfulness? 

The  traducianist  answers  this  by  saying  that  as 
Christ’s  birth  was  a  supernatural  event  at  any  rate,  his 
human  nature  was  preserved  from  the  taint  of  sin  by 
supernatural  sanctification. 

4.  Individuality  is  urged  as  an  argument  for  Crea¬ 
tionism.  Children  often  differ  much  from  their  parents. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


155 


Answer  to  argument  from  individuality: — 

Children  have  two  parents  and  a  combination  of  traits 
may  produce  traits  different  from  both. 

Again  heredity  draws  from  remote  ancestors.  Every 
person  has  two  parents,  four  grand  parents,  eight  great 
grand  parents,  and  every  further  step  is  multiplied  by 
two.  Here  is  sufficient  cause  of  variety  and  indviduality. 


Section  II.  Traducianism. 

Traducianism  means  that  man’s  soul  is  derived  from 
the  parents  and  therefore  mankind  is  a  race  or  species  in 
regard  to  soul  as  well  as  body. 

The  arguments  for  this  view  are: — 

1.  The  fact  of  hereditary  traits  in  our  mental  and 
moral  make-up. 

2.  It  accounts  for  the  transmission  of  our  sinful  na¬ 
ture  from  Adam  to  posterity. 

3.  Otherwise  it  is  hard  to  maintain  the  justice  of 
God  in  the  punishment  of  inherited  sin. 

4.  It  is  difficult  for  Creationism  to  explain  how  each 
created  soul  is  sinful. 

5.  Traducianism  best  accounts  for  the  universality 
of  sin. 

Among  angels  some  fell  and  some  did  not  because 
there  was  no  racial  connection;  and  no  transmission  of 
sinful  nature  from  one  to  another. 

6.  Traducianism  admits  the  concurrence  of  the  im¬ 
manent  God  in  all  the  traduction  of  the  human  race  as 
his  providence,  power,  and  purpose  are  over  all  things. 

7.  Scripture  passages  favoring  traducianism. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  make  this  point  a  matter  of 
definite  teaching,  and  all  appeal  to  Scripture  texts  is  an 
effort  to  discover  by  inference  how  the  matter  was  re¬ 
garded  by  the  writers. 

However,  very  valuable  suggestions  are  thus  derived. 


156 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Some  passages  are  as  follows: — 

Jno.  1:13.  Born,  not  of  blood.  This  contrasts  spiritual  birth 
with  natural,  implying  that  natural  birth  is  traducian. 

Jno.  3:6.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.  In  this  citation  the  word  flesh 
is  understood  to  mean  the  whole  man  as  unregenerate. 

Rom.  1:3.  Concerning  his  Son  who  was  born  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh. 

Rom.  5:12.  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world  and  death 
by  sin  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  sinned. 

I  Cor.  15:22.  As  in  Adam  all  die. 

Ephes.  2:3.  By  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others. 

Heb.  7:10.  For  he  (Levi)  was  yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father 
when  Melchizedek  met  him. 

Note.  Each  view  faces  a  difficulty. 

Creationism: — How  explain  the  sinful  nature  of  each 
created  soul? 

Traducianism : — How  can  an  indivisible  substance 
transmit  itself? 


Chapter  III.  The  Antiquity  of  Man. 


Section  I.  How  long  has  man  lived  on  the  earth? 

The  common  belief  has  been  about  6000  years.  This 
is  due  to  Usher’s  chronology  found  in  the  margin  of  many 
Bibles.  Usher’s  chronology  is  based  on  the  Hebrew  text 
but  is  rather  uncertain  for  the  early  periods,  because  the 
genealogical  lists  are  evidently  not  complete.  The  lists 
subsequent  to  Abraham  are  condensed,  and  evidently  so 
before  that  time.  So,  difficult  to  form  an  accurate  chro¬ 
nology.  The  chronology  derived  from  the  LXX  would 
make  the  human  period  about  7500.  There  is  also  some 
difficulty  in  understanding  Hebrew  statements  of  numbers. 
Conservative  geologists  say  that  10,000  years  are  suf¬ 
ficient  for  all  scientific  problems  involved. 

When  men  quote  millions  of  years,  take  it  with  several 
grains  of  salt. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


157 


Prof.  Frederick  Pfaff  of  Erlangen  University,  writing 
on  “The  Age  and  Origin  of  Man”  shows  (1)  that  the  age 
of  man  is  short,  extending  only  a  few  thousand  years; 

(2)  that  man  appeared  suddenly;  the  most  ancient  man 
known  to  us  is  not  essentially  different  from  the  now  liv¬ 
ing  man;  (3)  that  transition  from  the  ape  to  the  man,  or 
man  to  the  ape,  is  nowhere  found. 


Section  II.  Reasons  assigned  for  a  great  antiquity 
of  man. 

(a)  Inventions  supposed  to  mark  different  ages, 
stone  age,  iron  age,  bronze  age,  etc. 

These  not  successive  but  contemporaneous.  There 
was  a  stone  age  in  America  only  a  few  hudred  years  ago. 
And  in  New  Guinea  down  to  the  present. 

(b)  Human  remains  found  in  strata  deeply  buried. 

The  question  is,  how  did  they  get  there? 

Maybe  washed  there  through  holes  or  buried  in  caves 
now  fallen  in,  or  burrowing  beasts  carried  them,  or  con¬ 
vulsions  of  nature  buried  them.  Earthquakes  often  sink 
one  area  and  raise  another.  A  brick  found  in  the  Nile 
sand  was  supposed  to  be  of  great  antiquity,  till  another 
was  found  much  deeper  with  a  modern  inscription. 

How  long  does  it  take  for  a  brick  to  sink  into  a  quag¬ 
mire  ?  Skeleton  and  boat  in  sand  of  Mississippi ;  both  mod¬ 
ern.  Coins,  axes,  and  arms  in  peat  bogs  of  Europe  are 
mostly  Roman. 

(c)  Human  remains  associated  with  bones  of  animals 
now  extinct.  Cannot  prove  that  both  are  of  same  age. 

The  flood  may  have  washed  them  together  into  the 
same  strata  or  into  caves,  or  sea  currents  washed  them 
where  found  on  sea  coasts. 

(d)  Caucasians  and  Negroes  are  plainly  on  the  Egyp¬ 
tian  monuments,  and  it  must  have  taken  a  long  time  pre¬ 
viously  to  develop  the  differences  in  the  races.  We  can¬ 
not  tell  how  long  it  took  to  differentiate  the  Mongolian, 
Caucasian,  and  Negro,  or  whether  some  such  differences 
were  in  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth.  The  Bible  does  not  give 
us  any  statement  as  to  the  age  of  man  on  the  earth.  How¬ 
ever,  it  is  wise  to  discount  all  extravagant  claims. 


158 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Chapter  IV.  The  Nature  of  Man. 

Gen.  2:7.  The  Lord  God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man 
became  a  living  soul. 


Section  I.  Dychotomy. 

According  to  Gen.  2:7  man  is  composed  of  two  sub¬ 
stances,  and  only  two,  body  and  soul. 

1.  The  body  is  material  substance;  the  soul  is  spirit¬ 
ual  substance  or  spirit.  Substance  is  that  which  has  being, 
properties,  and  potency;  it  is  that  in  which  attributes  in¬ 
here. 

The  attributes  or  properties  of  matter  are  bulk,  weight, 
hardness,  form,  etc.  The  attributes  of  spirit  are  thought, 
volition,  affection  and  conscience.  These  substances  are 
different  because  their  properties  or  attributes  are  dif¬ 
ferent  and  opposite.  The  properties  of  matter  do  not  be¬ 
long  to  spirit,  and  the  attributes  of  spirit  do  not  belong 
to  matter. 

These  two  substances  constitute  man.  The  body  is 
matter;  the  soul  is  spirit.  There  are  no  other  substances. 
All  substance  is  either  matter  or  spirit.  The  soul  vivifies 
the  body.  When  the  soul  is  withdrawn  the  body  is  dead. 
The  soul  is  the  seat  of  the  personality. 

2.  Proof  of  Dychotomy. 

(a)  We  know  ourselves  as  body  and  soul.  The  testi¬ 
mony  of  consciousness  is  favorable  to  Dychotomy. 

(b)  In  the  record  of  man’s  creation  there  is  mention 
of  body  and  soul,  no  more. 

(c)  The  Scriptures  frequently  mention  the  two  ele¬ 
ments. 

I  Kings  17:21.  Let  the  child’s  soul  come  to  him  again. 

Eccles.  12:7.  The  dust  returneth  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and 
the  spirit  unto  God  who  gave  it. 

Jas.  2:26.  The  body  apart  from  the  spirit  is  dead. 

Matt.  10:28.  Able  to  destroy  both  body  and  soul  in  hell. 

I  Cor.  5:3.  For  I  being  absent  in  body  but  present  in  spirit. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


159 


(d)  In  the  Scriptures  soul  and  spirit  are  used  inter¬ 
changeably. 

Gen.  41:8  His  spirit  was  troubled. 

Ps.  42:6.  O  my  God  my  soul  is  cast  down  within  me. 

Jno.  13:21.  He  was  troubled  in  spirit. 

3.  The  relation  of  the  soul  and  body  to  each  other 
is  mysterious  if  not  incomprehensible.  How  the  body  acts 
on  the  mind  and  how  the  mind  acts  on  the  body  we  cannot 
understand  though  we  experience  such  action  daily. 

The  mind  bids  the  body  act  and  it  acts.  The  body 
conveys  impressions  of  the  external  world  to  the  mind  and 
the  mind  receives  the  same. 

Emotions  of  the  mind  affect  the  body,  e.  g.  blushing 
from  confusion.  Diseases  of  the  body  especially  of  the 
brain,  affect  and  disorder  the  mind.  The  manner  of  union 
between  the  mind  and  body  is  inscrutable. 


Section  II.  Trichotomy. 

Trichotomy  is  the  view  that  man  is  composed  of  three 
substances,  body,  soul,  and  spirit.  This  is  a  misconception. 
There  are  only  two  substances  in  man;  body  and  spirit. 
The  misconception  arises  from  the  relation  of  the  spirit 
to  the  body.  The  soul  or  spirit  vivifies  the  body  and  this 
life  is  sometimes  conceived  of  as  a  separate  entity  or  sub¬ 
stance  ;  but  is  only  a  special  relation  of  the  soul  to  the  body. 

“The  distinction  between  psyche  and  pneuma  is  a  func¬ 
tional,  and  not  a  substantial  distinction.” — Goodwin. 

In  I  Thess.  5:23,  Paul  uses  the  expression  “Spirit  and 
soul  and  body,”  but  doubtless  to  express  man  in  his  totality ; 
his  spiritual  nature,  his  bodily  nature,  and  the  functional 
life  due  to  their  union. 

Heb.  4:12  speaks  of  dividing  the  soul  and  spirit,  how¬ 
ever,  not  in  the  sense  of  separating  one  from  the  other, 
but  cutting,  or  smashing  through,  as  you  might  cut  a  stick 
into  two  pieces.  It  does  not  imply  two  things,  but  cutting 
in  two  a  single  thing. 

The  words  soul  and  spirit  are  used  interchangeably. 
Sometimes  the  word  “mind”  is  used  for  soul  though  properly 
the  word  mind  expresses  the  cognitive  powers  of  the  soul 
or  spirit. 

In  the  account  of  man’s  creation  we  have  mention  of 
only  two  substances,  the  one  matter,  the  other  spirit. 


160 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


In  the  account  of  man’s  death  only  two  substances. 
“Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was  and 
the  spirit  to  God  who  gave  it.”  Eccles.  12:7. 

Again  the  power  of  adoration  or  worship  is  ascribed 
to  the  soul.  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  soul.”  Nothing  higher  could  be  ascribed  to  the  spirit. 

Again  it  is  the  soul  that  is  saved. 

Jas.  1:21.  Able  to  save  the  soul. 

Mk.  8:36.  Gain  the  world  and  lose  his  soul. 

Nothing  more  could  be  said  of  the  spirit.  The  spirit 
is  not  something  higher  than  the  soul,  nor  different  from 
the  soul;  but  one  and  the  same. 

As  to  the  distinction  between  “soul”  and  “spirit”  per¬ 
haps  it  is  best  to  say  that  soul  refers  to  the  immaterial 
part  of  man  regarded  as  a  human  personality;  while  spirit 
refers  to  that  same  immaterial  part  with  reference  to  its 
constituent  substance,  or  as  to  its  divine  origin. 

Section  III.  The  soul  is  indivisible  either  as  to  parts 
or  action. 

It  is  not  one  part  of  the  soul  that  thinks,  another  part 
that  feels,  and  another  that  wills;  but  the  whole  soul  that 
thinks,  feels,  wills,  etc. 

Cognition,  volition,  affection  etc.  are  not  divisions  of 
the  mind  or  soul,  but  a  classification  of  the  activities  of 
the  soul. 

It  is  best  to  make  a  fourfold  classification:  Cognition 
or  Mind;  Volition  or  Will;  Affection  or  Feeling;  Conscience 
or  Moral  Nature. 

Section  IV.  The  Relation  of  Soul  to  Soul. 

1.  Individualism.  Each  soul  is  an  individual  sub¬ 
sistence,  separate  in  its  consciousness  and  activities  from 
all  other  souls;  being  of  the  same  kind,  but  not  the  same 
numerical  substance  as  the  souls  of  his  fellow-men. 

2.  Realism.  (Better  call  it  Commonism.) 

Realism  teaches  that  men  are  not  individual  souls; 
but  that  a  common  soul-substance  or  spirit  pervades  the 
human  race.  That  is  to  say,  that  the  same,  single,  numeri- 
cally-one  substance  constitutes  the  souls  of  all  the  race. 
Thus  your  soul  and  my  soul  and  the  souls  of  all  men  are 
numerically  but  one  substance. 

Illustration: — Your  suits  of  clothes  made  all  of  one 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


161 


web  without  cutting  one  suit  apart  from  the  others.  Or, 
waves  of  the  sea,  different  in  form  but  all  one  body  of 
water. 

3.  Objections  to  Realism. 

(a)  This  is  a  mere  supposition  without  proof. 

(b)  If  a  common  substance  constitutes  our  souls,  then 
we  would  have  a  common  consciousness ;  and  what  I  thought 
and  purposed,  you  would  know  and  vice  versa. 

(c)  This  would  make  all  men  one  man,  as  the  three 
persons  of  the  Trinity  are  one  God. 

(d)  This  destroys  individuality  on  which  our  person¬ 
al  responsibility  depends.  We  cannot  surrender  our  in¬ 
dividuality  to  a  theory. 

Section  V.  Free  Agency. 

There  are  three  main  theories  as  to  Free  Agency. 

1.  Fatalism.  This  doctrine  teaches  that  all  events 
are  determined  by  a  blind  necessity.  There  is  no  freedom 
of  the  individual;  no  liberty  of  choice;  no  self-determina¬ 
tion.  All  things  must  be  as  they  are,  with  no  possibility 
of  being  different.  In  this  view  there  is  no  free  agency. 

The  cause  of  this  necessity  may  be  in  the  nature  of 
things,  or  the  uniformity  of  natural  laws  over  which  there 
is  no  intelligent  control,  or  even  in  the  decree  of  God. 

Materialism  is  essentially  fatalistic. 

Pantheism  is  also  tinged  with  fatalism. 

Fatalism  destroys  all  responsibility  and  therefore  de¬ 
stroys  all  morality. 

2.  The  independence  of  the  will ;  or  the  self-determin¬ 
ing  power  of  the  will.  By  this  is  meant  that  man’s  will 
is  independent  of  his  other  faculties, — that  man  decides 
or  may  decide  irrespective  of  his  knowledge,  feelings,  con¬ 
science,  desires,  inclinations,  or  inducements. 

If  so,  this  is  to  act  irrationally. 

Man  is  free  to  choose,  but  the  will  does  not  act  re¬ 
gardless  of  all  considerations,  but  is  determined  by  the 
contents  of  the  other  faculties,  by  character  or  nature,  by 
external  inducements,  and  is  always  bounded  by  God  and 
subject  to  the  laws  of  the  universe  in  which  we  live  in¬ 
cluding  the  laws  of  our  own  being.  Properly  speaking, 
it  is  not  the  will  that  acts,  but  the  whole  man  that  wills. 


162 


ANTHROPOLOGY 

3.  True  Free  Agency. 

Free  agency  means  that  a  man  acts  free  from  compul¬ 
sion  by  some  external  power, — that  he  acts  in  accordance 
with  his  own  nature, — under  the  influence  of  his  know¬ 
ledge,  desires,  feelings,  inclinations  and  character.  But 
man  is  not  independent  of  God,  nor  of  the  laws  of  the 
universe,  nor  of  his  own  nature. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  a  man  is  a  free  agent;  bids 
him  choose;  and  holds  him  responsible  for  his  choice.  If 
man  were  not  a  free  agent,  he  would  have  no  responsibility. 
On  the  whole,  man  acts  as  he  thinks  and  feels  and  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  his  character  or  nature.  Free  agency,  however, 
has  its  limitations.  There  is  much  that  concerns  us  most 
deeply  in  which  man’s  free  agency  plays  no  part. 

No  man  ever  had  a  chance  to  say  whether  he  would 
be  or  not.  His  consent  was  never  asked  in  the  matter. 
When  existence  was  given  him,- he  never  had  a  chance  to 
say  either  yes,  or  no.  Existence  was  thrust  upon  him, 
and  a  heavy  hand  impels  him  through  a  series  of  experi¬ 
ences,  of  joys  and  sorrows,  of  tears  and  fears,  of  wants 
and  woes,  of  triumphs  and  tragedies,  without  halt,  with¬ 
out  stop,  without  retreat,  or  even  the  possiblity  of  them. 
Who  ever  had  a  chance  to  say  whether  he  would  be  born, 
or  when;  or  where;  or  what;  or  of  whom? 

We  must  recognize  the  limits  of  free  agency;  that  we 
are  bounded  by  God  and  his  absolute  sovereignty;  and 
by  certain  laws  and  conditions  which  God  hath  impressed 
upon  our  being  and  the  universe  in  which  we  live. 

We  are  free  agents  within  certain  limits,  and  beyond 
these  limits  we  are  absolutely  dependent  on  the  God  who 
made  us,  and  whose  providence  controls  the  arrow’s  flight 
and  the  sparrow’s  fall.* 

*Since  writing  the  above,  the  following  came  to  notice: — “No 
doubt  the  free  will  of  men  has  been  absurdly  exaggerated.  As  a 
fact  it  is  strictly  limited.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  human  in¬ 
dependence.  All  the  forces  which  any  man  employs,  in  choosing 
or  carrying  out  his  choice,  are  drawn  from  beyond  himself.  His 
conditions  determine  the  channels  along  which  he  must  use  the 
powers  which  are  available.  Nevertheless,  in  the  heart  of  this  world 
of  determinate  and  determined  forces  and  laws  there  lies  this  myster¬ 
ious  and  unique  thing — free  choice.” — Charles  Gore,  formerly  Bishop 
of  Oxford. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


163 


4.  Relation  to  Regeneration. 

We  must  remember  here  that  regeneration  comes  in 
by  divine  intervention  to  change  the  nature  and  determine 
the  life.  No  free  agency  is  above  God.  Man  is  not  an 
agent  in  his  regeneration. 

This  new  creation  or  new  birth  is  not  a  violation  of 
free  agency  any  more  than  man’s  creation  at  the  beginning. 

In  his  old  life  he  acted  in  accordance  with  his  sinful 
nature,  and  in  his  new  life  he  acts  in  accordance  with  his 
new  nature.  In  all  therefore  he  is  a  free  agent.  And  in 
his  regeneration  he  was  not  an  agent  at  all. 

5.  The  Will  in  Psychological  Discussion. 

The  age-long  debate  concerning  the  will  has  resolved 
the  disputants  into  two  main  classes;  Determinists  and 
Indeterminists. 

The  Indeterminist  says  that  man  excercises  his  will 
independently  of  any  other  faculty,  or  may  do  so,  that 
human  volition  is  spontaneous,  that  it  is  or  may  be  wholly 
undetermined  by  motives,  reasons,  inducements,  or  anything 
other  than  itself.  Whedon  teaches  that  man  may  project 
his  volitions  without  any  reason  whatever;  that  each  voli¬ 
tion  is  a  separate  and  distinct  creation  of  the  soul  out  of 
nothing. 

The  Determinist  says  that  human  volitions  are  de¬ 
termined  by  a  number  of  other  things  that  act  as  reasons, 
motives,  antecedents,  etc.,  controlling  the  excercise  of  the 
will  thus  or  so. 

There  are  however,  two  classes  of  Determinists. 
Spinoza,  Hobbes  and  Huxley  are  determinists;  so  also  are 
Edwards,  Hodge  and  Patton,  but  with  a  very  different 
sort  of  determinism.  The  first  trio  are  physical  determ¬ 
inists,  the  latter  are  psychical  determinists. 

Physical  determinism  applies  physical  causation  to 
psychical  events.  Materialists  and  Pantheists  line  up  on 
this  ground;  to  the  detriment  of  all  responsibility  and 
morality.  This  doctrine  blots  out  the  soul,  and  makes  man 
little  better  than  a  machine,  operated  by  blind  forces. 

Psychical  determinism  on  the  other  hand,  is  determina¬ 
tion  by  character,  reason,  motives,  persuasions,  etc.  It 
recognizes  the  inter-relation  of  the  human  faculties,  the 
influence  of  character,  and  racial  antecedents,  and  the  power 
of  appeal  to  determine  the  will. 


164 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


It  recognizes  the  Ego  as  the  efficient  cause  or  agent 
of  the  volition;  and  that  he  is  a  free  agent,  not  acting 
under  compulsion  from  without;  but  acting  in  accordance 
with  his  own  nature  as  a  rational  being. 

In  Reformed  Theology  this  is  not  held  to  controvert 
the  sovereignty  of  God  in  Regeneration  or  in  the  com¬ 
munication  of  grace.  Man  acts  in  accordance  with  his 
character  however  that  character  is  acquired. 

Between  Determinism  and  Indeterminism,  there  has 
been  strenuous  debate.  Much  of  the  argument  against 
Determinism,  however,  is  applicable  only  as  against  physical 
determinism,  which  all  theistic  philosophy  unites  in  con¬ 
demning;  but  as  against  psychical  determinism  the  argu¬ 
ments  are  not  valid. 

Indeterminism  offers  the  following  arguments: — 

(a)  That  it  is  supported  by  consciousness. 

But  it  is  more  than  doubtful  if  this  is  true.  Con¬ 
sciousness  testifies  that  we  are  the  agents  in  our  volitions, 
that  we  are  free  agents,  but  not  that  the  volition  is  un¬ 
influenced  by  the  contents  of  our  being;  or  by  anything 
ab  extra  or  ab  intra.  Rather  the  consciousness  tells  us 
that  our  volitions  are  determined  by  whatever  appeals  to 
us  most  powerfully  at  the  time. 

(b)  It  is  said  that  the  will  can  decide  against  the 
strongest  motives.  Adam  decided  for  evil;  and  evil  is  a 
far  inferior  motive  than  good.  But  if  this  argument  is 
true,  it  is  true  only  when  by  “motive”  is  meant  something 
outside  of  the  mind  as  end  or  object,  and  not  the  motive 
in  the  mind  itself. 

What  seems  to  the  mind  most  desirable  at  the  time 
determines  the  choice  whether  intrinsically  the  best  or  the 
worst. 

(c)  It  is  said  that  we  sometimes  choose  when  there 
is  no  motive  for  choosing  this  rather  than  that. 

But  there  may  be  a  reason  which  we  cannot  perceive 
or  fail  to  perceive.  At  any  rate,  the  rule  of  all  life  is  to 
choose  for  some  reason,  and  to  act  otherwise  is  to  act  un- 
intelligently. 

(d)  It  is  said  that  power  of  contrary  choice  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  moral  responsibility. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


165 


Moral  accountability  must  be  maintained  whatever  be 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  will,  but  this  argument  does  not 
support  indeterminism  any  more  than  it  does  determinism, 
unless  it  is  directed  against  a  physical  determinism  or  fatal¬ 
ism. 


The  question  between  Determinism  and  Indeterminism 
is  this: — 

Why  does  the  agent  put  forth  this  volition  rather  than 
that?  What  determines  the  choice?  If  it  is  said  that 
there  is  no  reason  for  such  choice :  the  answer  is : — 

(a)  This  is  inconceivable. 

(b)  This  destroys  responsibility.  If  volition  does 
not  express  a  man’s  character  then  there  is  neither  virtue 
or  blame  in  the  excercise  of  the  volition.  And  if  character 
does  not  determine  conduct  how  can  we  know  that  it  is 
not  the  bad  man  who  exhibits  good  behavior  and  the  good 
man  who  is  filling  the  world  with  bad  volitions? 

(c)  If  volitions  are  undetermined  by  character,  then 
why  do  the  volitions  of  a  man  bear  any  similarity  or  uni¬ 
formity  ? 

Why  are  the  mean  man’s  volitions  mean  and  the  mag¬ 
nanimous  man’s  volitions  generous? 

Indeterminism  has  no  answer  to  this  question. 

But  the  truth  in  the  case  is  that  a  good  tree  bringeth 
forth  good  fruit  and  an  evil  tree  evil  fruit. 

(d)  If  there  is  no  reason  for  human  volition,  then 
what  becomes  of  character?  What  becomes  of  the  unity 
of  life?  Or  of  moral  accountability?  Or  of  all  efforts  to 
influence  men  by  argument  or  inducement  of  any  kind? 

(e)  We  must  choose  between  the  theory  that  makes 
the  action  of  the  will  absolutely  fortuitous,  and  the  view 
that  regards  the  will  as  determined  by  character,  motive, 
or  mental  state  in  the  moment  preceding  volition. 

(For  thorough  Discussion  see  Schaff -Herzog  Ency¬ 
clopedia,  Article  “Will”,  by  Francis  L.  Patton,  from  which 
the  foregoing  paragraph  has  been  largely  drawn.) 


166 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Chapter  V.  The  Original  State  of  Man. 


Section  I.  As  to  his  body. 

(a)  Seemingly  full  grown. 

(b)  Immortal.  The  Scriptures  always  represent  death 
both  physical  and  spiritual  as  the  result  of  sin. 

If  man  had  not  sinned  then  not  subject  to  death. 

How  preserved  in  physical  being? 

The  original  constitution  of  man  was  evidently  of  high 
quality.  The  longevity  of  the  patriarchs,  even  after  sin 
had  entered,  shows  a  remarkable  constitution.  And  the 
earliest  fossil  remains  of  man  show  him  highly  developed. 

A  tree  of  life  was  in  the  garden,  Gen.  3:24.  It  is 
again  referred  to  in  the  end  of  Revelation  as  being  for 
the  healing  of  the  nations. 

Or  translation  without  death,  as  in  the  case  of  Enoch, 
may  have  become  the  means  of  immortality.  As  to  this 
we  have  no  certain  information. 

(See  System  of  Christian  Theology,  H.  B.  Smith, 
p.  259.) 


Section  II.  As  to  his  soul. 

(a)  Created  in  the  image  of  God. 

This  includes  knowledge,  holiness,  moral  nature,  ra¬ 
tional  nature,  free  agency,  dominion,  etc. 

Man  was  created  capable  of  communion  with  God. 
The  implications  in  this  fact  are  many  and  important; 
bearing  on  the  being  of  God,  the  nature  of  God,  the  a  priori 
certainty  of  a  revelation  etc.,  etc. 

(b)  Shorter  Catechism  10:  How  did  God  create  man? 
God  created  man  male  and  female  after  his  own  image 
in  knowledge,  righteousness  and  holiness  with  dominion 
over  the  creatures. 


Section  III.  Pelagian  doctrine  of  Man’s  Original  State. 

(a)  Man  created  mortal.  Would  have  died  like  all 
animals.  So  also  Russellism. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


167 


(b)  Man  created  characterless;  neither  holy  nor  un¬ 
holy;  neither  righteous  nor  unrighteous;  but  capable  of 
becoming  either. 

This  position  is  due  to  their  desire  to  make  man  re¬ 
sponsible  only  for  his  acts  and  not  for  the  character  out 
of  which  the  acts  proceed.  But  the  Scriptures  show  that 
acts  proceed  from  character. 


Section  IV.  Romish  view  of  Man’s  Original  State. 

(a)  According  to  Romanism,  man  was  created  soul 
and  body;  but  the  two  were  in  disharmony;  a  mutual  and 
natural  antagonism  between  soul  and  body. 

This  pertained  to  man  as  he  came  from  the  hands  of 
God.  This  savors  of  Manichseism  which  regards  matter 
as  essentially  evil. 

But  Romanism  teaches  that  God  conferred  on  man 
the  added  gift  of  Original  Righteousness  to  harmonize  the 
conflicting  elements  of  body  and  soul. 

Accordingly,  the  original  state  of  man  was  not  the 
perfect,  harmonius,  happy  condition  implied  in  the  state¬ 
ment:  “God  saw  all  things  which  he  had  made  and  be¬ 
hold  they  were  very  good.” 

Original  righteousness  was  therefore  not  a  con-created 
grace;  but  an  added  supernatural  gift. 

(b)  A  second  feature  of  this  Papal  anthropology  is 
that  apostasy  involves  the  loss  of  that  supernatural  gift; 
but  not  of  any  natural  and  original  grace. 

By  the  fall,  man  reverts  to  the  condition  in  which  he 
was  by  creation,  a  conflict  between  flesh  and  spirit.  In 
losing  original  righteouness,  he  loses  nothing  with  which 
he  was  endowed  by  the  creative  act,  but  only  the  subse¬ 
quent  gift. 

Original  righteouness  being  a  supernatural  gift,  original 
sin  is  the  loss  of  it.  Original  sin  therefore  brings  man  back 
to  his  original  condition,  which  was  conceived  of  as  neither 
holy  nor  sinful;  but  yet  one  of  conflict  and  disharmony. 
This  arises  from  the  nature  of  things,  or  by  creation  it¬ 
self,  and  not  from  any  act  of  apostasy  on  the  part  of  man. 

(c)  This  affects  the  nature  of  original  sin  as  held 
by  the  Roman  Catholic  theology. 


168 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Original  sin  is  therefore  not  truly  and  properly  sin. 
Man  is  born  in  the  same  negative  state  in  which  Adam 
was  created. 

Bellarmin  savs:  “The  state  of  man  after  the  fall  dif- 

i/ 

fers  no  more  from  the  state  of  man  as  created  in  puris 
naturalibus  than  a  man  originally  naked  differs  from  one 
who  was  clothed,  but  has  been  stripped  of  his  clothing; 
neither  is  human  nature  any  worse  (except  for  the  act  of 
transgression)  than  it  was  made  by  God.” 


Section  V.  The  Evolutionist's  View  of  Man's  Original 
State. 

Primitive  man  is  the  culmination  of  animal  develop¬ 
ment.  His  starting  point  is  the  point  where  the  animal 
arrived  at  self-consciousness  and  accountability. 

There  was  no  fall;  but  rather  a  “stumbling  upwards.'' 

Sin  is  the  remains  of  his  animal  nature. 

Sin  is  not  something  that  came  into  the  human  race 
after  its  creation ;  but  something  that  belongs  to  the  origin¬ 
al  nature  of  the  race,  and  inseparable  from  the  process 
of  creation. 

Original  sin  belongs  to  man’s  original  nature  as  he 
came  from  the  hands  of  his  creator. 


Chapter  VI.  The  Covenant  of  Works. 


Section  I.  Statement. 

(a)  Conf.  7:2:  “The  first  covenant  made  with  Adam 
was  a  covenant  of  works  wherein  life  was  promised  to 
Adam  and  to  his  posterity  upon  condition  of  perfect  and 
personal  obedience.” 

(b)  Cat.  12:  What  special  act  of  providence  did  God 
exercise  towards  man,  in  the  estate  wherein  he  was  cre¬ 
ated? 

When  God  had  created  man,  he  entered  into  a  covenant 
of  life  with  him,  upon  condition  of  perfect  obedience;  for¬ 
bidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  upon  pain  of  death. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


169 


(c)  Gen.  2:17:  But  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  for  in  the  day  that  thou 
eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die. 


Section  II.  What  is  a  covenant? 

(a)  An  agreement  between  two  or  more  persons. 

(b)  A  promise  suspended  on  a  condition. 

God  being  infinitely  superior  to  Adam  might  impose 
a  covenant  with  or  without  consent;  but  every  reason  to 
think  Adam  acquiesced  in  it. 


Section  III.  Evidences  of  such  a  covenant. 

(a)  Gen.  2:17.  (See  above) 

(b)  The  parties,  God  and  Adam. 

(c)  The  conditions,  Perfect  obedience. 

(d)  The  penalty,  death.  Both  natural  and  spiritual 
death. 

(e)  The  promise,  life.  More  than  natural  life;  he 
had  that. 

The  promise  is  not  stated  in  the  narrative  but  implied 
as  the  alternative  of  death.  Spoken  of  in  Rom.  10:5: 

“For  Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
the  law,  that  the  man  which  doeth  those  things  shall  live 
by  them,”  and  Gal.  8:12:  “And  the  law  is  not  of  faith; 
but,  the  man  that  doeth  them  shall  live  in  them.” 

(f)  All  the  plan  of  redemption  is  presented  as  a 
covenant;  e.  g.  to  Noah,  to  Abraham,  to  Israel.  Old  and 
new  dispensations  are  covenants.  So  evidently  here.  Here 
are  all  the  signs  and  parts  of  a  covenant. 


Section  IV.  In  this  covenant  Adam  represented  all 
his  posterity. 

Catechism  16.  Did  all  mankind  fall  in  Adam’s  first 
transgression  ? 

The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam,  not  only  for 
himself,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind,  descending  from 
him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with 
him,  in  his  first  transgression. 


170 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Section  V.  The  observance  of  this  covenant  for  a  cer¬ 
tain  time  constituted  a  probation. 

(a)  The  probation  was  fair. 

Adam  was  fortified  by  his  holy  nature,  happy  environ¬ 
ment,  fellowship  with  God,  and  by  positive  warnings  and 
promises. 

(b)  Adam’s  holiness  was  not  established  by  long  con¬ 
tinuance;  he  was  not  indefectible,  and  he  yielded  to  the 
insinuations  and  persuasion  of  Satan  and  fell  and  all  his 
posterity  with  him. 

Had  Adam  stood  the  test  his  character  would  have 
become  fixed  and  immutable  like  the  saints  in  heaven. 


Chapter  VII.  The  Fall  of  Man. 


Section  I.  Was  there  a  fall? 

(a)  Denied  by  evolutionists,  Pantheists  and  otherwise. 

(b)  Taught  in  the  Bible.  Gen.  I — III. 

Taught  in  Cat.  13:  Did  our  first  parents  continue  in 
the  estate,  etc. 

Section  II.  Two  difficulties. 

(a)  A  psychological  difficulty.  How  could  a  holy  be¬ 
ing  entertain  a  desire  to  sin?  How  could  a  sinful  volition 
originate  in  a  holy  will? 

If  volition  is  determined  by  desire  and  character,  how 
can  a  holy  character  have  a  sinful  volition?  (See  System 
Christian  Theology,  H.  B.  Smith,  pp.  263.) 

Temptation  was  placed  before  them.  The  natural  de¬ 
sire  for  food  and  knowledge  was  awakened,  and  inducements 
were  presented  that  led  to  an  exercise  of  their  free  agency 
contrary  to  their  own  good. 

The  act  was  not  sinful  per  se  but  because  forbidden. 

(b)  A  moral  difficulty:  Why  did  a  holy  God  permit 
sin?  (For  thorough  discussion,  see  System  Christian  The¬ 
ology,  Henry  B,  Smith,  pp.  146 — 159.) 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


171 


Section  III.  Observations : — 

(1)  God  could  have  prevented  sin. 

(2)  Permitted  it  for  reasons  that  we  do  not  know. 

(3)  Made  man  a  free  agent  to  choose  for  himself. 

(4)  Would  seem  that  sin  must  be  a  possibility  where 
free  agency  is  a  fact. 

(5)  God  over-rules  sin  for  eventual  good. 

(6)  God's  love  is  more  evident  in  redemption  than 
if  man  had  never  sinned. 

(7)  After  all  is  said,  the  origin  of  sin  must  ever  re¬ 
main  a  mystery  and  the  reason  for  it  inscrutable. 


Section  IV.  The  Effects  of  the  Fall — Degeneracy  and 
Death. 

The  beginning  of  sin  and  apostasy  is  usually  in  some 
slight  defection  that  does  not  shock  the  moral  sense.  But 
the  first  step  having  been  taken  the  descent  to  greater 
iniquity  follows  with  increasing  rapidity.  Adam,  having 
disobeyed,  and  corrupted  his  nature,  gave  a  bias  to  posterity 
and  quickly  the  sad  fruits  appear.  The  first  man  born 
killed  the  second,  and  the  degeneracy  of  the  race  went 
on  by  leaps  and  bounds  till  it  culminated  in  destruction 
by  the  deluge. 

The  fall  was  more  than  a  mere  misfortune,  it  corrupted 
the  spiritual  nature  of  the  human  race.  “That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh.”  All  mankind  inherited  a  sinful 
nature,  which  in  itself  is  sin.  Sinfulness  is  sin;  and  all 
sin  and  sinfulness  is  condemnable  by  the  law  of  God.  “We 
are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others.”  The 
race  was  lost  in  the  fall. 

Catechism  17.  Into  what  estate  did  the  fall  bring 
mankind  ? 

The  fall  brought  mankind  into  an  estate  of  sin  and 
misery. 

Catechism  19.  What  is  the  misery  of  that  estate  into 
which  man  fell? 

All  mankind  by  their  fall,  lost  communion  with  God, 
are  under  his  wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made  liable  to  all 
the  miseries  of  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pains 
of  hell  forever. 


172 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Chapter  VIII.  Relation  of  Adam  and  his  Sin  to  Posterity. 

Section  I.  Scriptural  Statement. 

Rom.  5:12.  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world  and  death 
by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  (have)  sinned. 

Rom.  5:14.  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses  even  over 
those  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam’s  transgres¬ 
sion. 

Rom.  5:17.  By  the  offence  of  one  death  reigned  by  one. 

Rom.  5:19.  As  by  one  man’s  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners,  etc. 

I  Cor.  15:22.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  etc. 

Cat.  16.  Did  all  mankind  fall  in  Adam’s  first  trans¬ 
gression  ? 

The  covenant,  being  made  with  Adam,  not  only  for 
himself,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from 
him,  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with 
him  in  his  first  transgression. 

Section  II.  Explanation. 

(a)  There  has  been  much  debate  over  the  question 
whether  there  was  a  mediate  or  an  immediate  imputation 
of  Adam’s  sin  to  the  race. 

A  mediate  imputation  means  through  the  medium  of 
natural  generation  or  heredity. 

Immediate  imputation  means  a  direct  imputation  with¬ 
out  any  medium  whatsoever. 

Did  the  penalty  of  sin  fall  on  the  human  race  directly, 
or  indirectly  through  the  medium  of  an  inherited  corrupt 
nature  ? 

There  is  an  element  of  immediateness  in  the  fact  that 
death  is  the  direct  and  immediate  consequence  of  sin,  and 
so  far  as  any  human  race  was  involved  or  in  contempla¬ 
tion  it  was  prospectively  dead  the  moment  that  Adam 
sinned. 

But  there  is  an  element  of  mediateness  in  the  fact 
that  the  corruption  of  nature  and  the  penalty  on  the  in¬ 
dividual  took  actual  effect  through  the  medium  of  nat¬ 
ural  generation  or  transmission  of  nature. 

(b)  Federal  and  Natural  Headship. 

Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  race  because  he 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


173 


represented  them  and  stood  his  probation  for  them  as  well 
as  for  himself. 

But  Adam  was  the  natural  head  of  the  race,  and  the 
natural  headship  is  the  basis  of  the  federal  headship. 

Because  he  was  the  natural  head  he  was  the  federal 
head. 

Adam  stood  probation  for  the  race  and  they  lost  their 
probation  in  him.  The  race  fell  in  Adam  because  they 
were  substantially  in  him  though  not  individually  in  him. 
Individuality  had  not  yet  arisen  for  his  posterity.  All  man¬ 
kind  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  trans¬ 
gression.  The  race  inherited  a  corrupt  and  sinful  nature, 
which  is  itself  under  condemnation  because  of  its  sinful¬ 
ness  and  which  nature  is  the  root  of  actual  transgression 
in  the  individual. 

The  moral  lesson  suggested  is  that  of  parental  re¬ 
sponsibility. 

(c)  Another  explanation  is  called,  The  Theory  of 
Direct  Divine  Efficiency. 

This  is  the  system  of  Samuel  Hopkins  and  Nathaniel 
Emmons,  New  England  theologians.  Their  system  is  called 
Hopkinsianism. 

Their  fundamental  position  was  that  all  holiness  and 
sin  are  in  the  exercises  of  man’s  will;  and  there  is  no 
holiness  or  sin  in  the  nature  of  man  apart  from  these  ex¬ 
ercises.  That  is,  that  all  sin  consists  in  sinning.  If  man 
has  no  sinful  nature  out  of  which  his  sinful  acts  proceed, 
how  explain  the  sinful  deeds  of  the  whole  human  race? 

This  was  their  explanation: — God  in  his  sovereignty 
established  a  “constitution,”  or  divine  arrangement  in  which 
it  was  appointed  that  if  Adam  sinned,  all  his  posterity 
should  sin  in  their  first  moral  acts. 

This  was  attributed  to  the  decree  of  God  and  not 
to  the  sinfulness  of  an  inherited  nature. 

The  older  Hopkinsianism  did  not  admit  a  soul  prior 
to  action. 

These  objections  apply  to  this  view: — 

It  refers  the  sinfulness  of  the  race  to  the  divine  ef¬ 
ficiency  and  makes  God  the  author  of  human  sin. 

It  further  neglects  the  racial  unity  that  exists  in  the 
substantial  oneness  of  human  nature  under  the  law  of 
heredity. 


174 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


(d)  Another  hypothesis  is  that  of  Physical  Deprav¬ 
ity. 

This  is  the  view  of  Nathaniel  Wm.  Taylor,  professor 
of  Dogmatic  theology  in  Yale  College,  in  the  early  part 
of  the  19th  century. 

The  view  is,  that  by  Adam’s  fall  man’s  physical  con¬ 
stitution  suffered  such  derangement  as  to  make  it  certain 
that  man  would  sin. 

There  was  soul  prior  to  action  but  it  was  innocent  or 
neutral.  The  physical  deterioration  determines  the  fact 
and  certainty  of  sin. 

Objections  to  this  view: — 

It  makes  sin  too  much  of  a  physical  thing  or  the  re¬ 
sult  of  a  physical  condition. 

Unless  regeneration  and  atonement  have  physical  ef¬ 
fects  it  is  hard  to  see  how  they  apply  in  the  salvation 
of  man. 

It  minimizes  culpability  by  referring  sin  to  physical 
deterioration  which  in  itself  is  not  sin. 


Chapter  IX.  SIN. 

Section  I.  The  fact  of  sin. 

1.  Proved  by  Scripture. 

Jer.  17:9.  The  heart  of  man  is  deceitful  above  measure  and 
desperately  wicked. 

Ps.  14:3.  There  is  none  that  doeth  good  no  not  one. 

Isa.  53:6.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray. 

Rom.  3:9.  We  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
that  they  are  all  under  sin. 

I  Jno.  1:8,  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves 
and  the  truth  is  not  in  us. 

I  Jno.  1:10.  If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned  we  make  him 
a  liar,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us. 

2.  Proved  by  consciousness. 

Consciousness  distinguishes  between  pleasure  and  pain ; 
between  happiness  and  misery ;  between  perceptions  and  in¬ 
tuitions. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


175 


(a)  So  it  also  distinguishes  between  right  and  wrong. 
It  thus  bears  testimony  to  the  fact  of  evil. 

(b)  The  fact  of  sin  is  a  universal  conviction.  All 
nations  under  all  forms  of  religion  are  conscious  of  sin, 
and  that  sin  is  a  specific  thing  different  from  all  other 
affections  of  the  soul.  The  heathen  religions  are  so  many 
witnesses  to  the  facts  of  human  nature,  and  all  display 
a  consciousness  of  sin  and  need  of  reconciliation  with  a 
supreme  being.  Every  babe  that  was  ever  thrown  into 
the  fires  of  Moloch,  or  into  the  pit  of  a  heathen  temple, 
or  cast  into  the  Ganges  to  feed  the  crocodiles, — every  act 
of  asceticism,  or  flagellation,  or  bodily  humiliation, — every 
altar  that  ever  ran  red  with  the  blood  of  a  victim  is  an 
outstanding  confession  of  the  consciousness  of  sin.  The 
heathen  religions  are  but  the  mighty  efforts  of  the  human 
spirit  to  express  its  religious  convictions  and  solve  the 
age-long  question  propounded  by  Job:  “How  shall  a  man 
be  just  with  God?”  Man  everywhere  feels  himself  subject 
to  a  law  of  right  and  knows  that  he  ought  to  do  the  right 
and  refrain  from  the  wrong.  He  knows  also  that  he  has 
not  done  the  right  and  has  done  the  wrong. 

(c)  The  testimony  of  consciousness  goes  farther,  it 
leads  to  a  personal  God.  The  universal  human  heart  feels 
responsibility  to  a  being  higher  than  man  and  over  all  men, 
who  commends  or  condemns  him  in  conduct  and  character. 
The  sense  of  obligation  in  men  always  relates  itself  to  a 
being  who  may  be  pleased  or  displeased,  and  that  being 
and  his  will  consitute  the  law  of  right  and  wrong.  Thus 
man’s  innate  being  bears  witness  to  sin. 

3.  Proved  by  observation. 

Sin  is  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  persistent  facts 
in  the  history  of  the  human  race.  It  has  filled  the  world 
with  misery  from  Adam’s  day  till  now.  No  one  can  escape 
the  evidence  of  it. 

Every  broken  heart,  every  blasted  home,  every  scene 
of  carnage  on  the  battle  field,  every  reeling  drunkard,  every 
felon  behind  the  grated  door  of  a  prison  presents  the  sad 
evidence  of  sin. 

It  confronts  us  every  day  in  every  scene  we  look  upon. 
No  man  can  shut  his  eyes  to  it,  nor  shut  the  conscious¬ 
ness  of  it  out  of  his  heart. 


176 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


If  any  man  denies  his  own  sinfulness  it  will  be  quite 
sufficient  to  ask  his  neighbors.  Mr.  Moody  said:  “If  any 
man  claims  sinlessness,  I  should  like  to  ask  his  wife.” 

A  missionary  relates  that  he  was  once  telling  a  com¬ 
pany  of  heathen  that  “the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth 
from  all  sin,”  when  a  heathen  man  arose  and  said:  “I 
deny  your  premise;  I  am  not  a  sinner;  I  have  no  sin.”  The 
missionary  was  nonplussed  for  a  moment,  he  had  never 
heard  any  one  so  categorically  deny  the  fact  of  sin.  He 
paused  a  moment  to  form  an  answer;  but  he  had  no  need. 
A  voice  arose  from  the  assembled  crowd:  “Ho!  he  cheated 
me  trading  horses.”  Promptly  another  voice  shouted :  “Ha! 
he  defrauded  a  widow  out  of  her  inheritance.”  The 
boaster  dropped  his  head,  disappeared  and  never  came 
back.  It  is  not  easy  to  deny  the  fact  of  sin. 

4.  All  human  government  recognizes  the  fact  of  sin. 

Constitutions  and  laws  are  for  the  regulation  of  human  con¬ 
duct.  It  is  only  a  perfect  society  that  can  dispense  with 
civil  government.  The  agitator  who  decries  civil  govern¬ 
ment  should  recognize  that  his  cult  is  applicable  only  to 
a  world  that  is  perfect  in  character  and  conduct.  All 
human  governments  are  a  testimony  to  the  imperfection 
of  the  human  race. 

Peter  speaks  of  governors  as  “sent  by  him  (God)  for 
the  punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them 
that  do  well.”  I  Pet.  2:14. 

5.  Literature  is  a  great  witness  to  the  fact  of  sin. 
How  much  of  the  old  literature  was  tragedy  and  how  much 
of  modern  literature  is  worse!  From  the  Egyptian  “Ro¬ 
mance  of  the  Two  Brothers”  to  “The  Sorrows  of  Satan” 
literature  is  full  of  human  depravity. 

Section  II.  Definitions  of  Sin. 

1.  The  Manichaean  View. 

(a)  Statement. 

This  old  philosophy  taught  that  matter  was  eternal 
and  sinful,  and  that  spirit  is  also  eternal  and  good. 

These  two  principles  are  intermingled  in  man;  he  has 
a j  soul  from  the  kingdom  of  light,  and  a  body  from  the 
kingdom  of  darkness. 


177 


ANTHROPOLOGY 

Sin  is  the  defilement  of  the  soul  by  union  with  a  mate¬ 
rial  body ;  and  must  be  overcome  by  destroying  the  influence 
of  the  body  on  the  soul. 

(b)  Refutation. 

This  theory  destroys  man’s  responsibility  by  making 
sin  essential  to  the  constitution  of  man  as  he  is  in  this 
world. 

It  makes  God  the  author  of  sin  in  giving  man  a  body. 
If  sin  be  union  with  a  body,  then  redemption  must  be  the 
destruction  of  the  body;  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
Scriptures,  which  regard  the  soul  as  the  seat  of  sin,  and 
make  redemption  a  spiritual  and  not  a  physical  process. 

Again  all  men  regard  anger,  malice,  deceit,  revenge 
etc.  as  sinful ;  and  all  men  are  conscious  that  these  are 
not  affections  of  the  body. 

The  Roman  Catholic  view  of  sin  is  tinged  with 
Manichseism.  The  system  leads  to  asceticism  as  a  means 
to  moral  betterment. 

2.  Limitation  of  being  is  another  definition  of  sin; 
also  called  Finiteness. 

(a)  Statement. 

All  being  or  substance  is  good,  all  non-being  is  evil. 

God  is  the  Absolute  being  and  therefore  the  supreme 
good.  God  is  good  because  he  is  infinite;  the  world  has 
a  share  of  goodness  but  is  imperfect  because  finite. 

This  limitation  of  being  does  not  apply  merely  to 
physical  being  but  to  spiritual  being  also,  with  the  ignor¬ 
ance,  mistakes,  the  blundering,  and  incapacity  incident  to 
imperfect  knowledge  and  limitation  of  powers. 

This  is  the  view  of  Spinoza,  Leibnitz,  Bauer  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  Biedermann,  Swiss  Protestant  ob.  1885, 
a  disciple  of  the  Hegelian  and  Tubingen  schools.  Also 
the  view  of  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  and  of  Prof.  Josiah 
Royce  of  Harvard,  and  others. 

It  is  a  Pantheistic  conception  of  sin  and  will  be  found 
where  Pantheism  has  tinged  men’s  thought. 

Prof.  Royce  says:  “Evil  is  a  discord  necessary  to  per¬ 
fect  harmony.  It  is  in  itself  evil,  but  in  relation  to  the 
whole  it  has  value  by  showing  its  own  finiteness  and  im¬ 
perfection.” 


178 


ANTHROPOLOGY 

We  remark  that  discord  is  not  necessary  to  harmony 
and  in  no  way  constitutes  it.  Some  one  has  said :  “Without 
black  we  would  never  be  able  to  know  white.”  This  is  a 
fallacy.  Our  discriminating  differentiation  is  not  based 
wholly  upon  opposites.  These  assertions  are  made  to  imply 
that  evil  is  the  necessary  background  of  good.  The  most 
that  can  be  said  that  good  implies  the  POSSIBILITY  of 
evil  but  never  its  necessity. 

Emerson  taught  that  man’s  imperfection  is  not  sin, 
and  that  the  cure  for  it  lies  in  education. 

Biedermann  in  his  Dogmatik  writes :  “Evil  is  the  finite¬ 
ness  of  the  world-being,  which  clings  to  all  individual  exist¬ 
ences,  by  virtue  of  their  belonging  to  the  immanent  world- 
order.” 

Bauer  says:  “Evil  is  what  is  finite,  for  the  finite  is 
negative;  the  negation  of  the  infinite.”  “If  other  beings 
than  God  are  to  exist,  there  must  be  in  them,  so  far  as 
they  are  not  infinite  as  God  is,  for  that  very  reason  a  mini¬ 
mum  of  evil.”  Thus  all  men  are  evil  because  they  are 
finite  and  can  become  good  only  by  becoming  infinite  or 
by  becoming  God. 

This  theory  is  at  heart  Pantheistic.  In  Pantheism 
there  is  no  antagonism  between  God’s  mind  and  Man’s, 
for  man  is  God  in  development.  There  is  therefore  no 
holy  law  objective  to  man  and  no  responsibility  to  a  higher 
being,  since  man  himself  is  the  highest  being.  Sin  is  there¬ 
fore  only  an  incident  of  incompleteness;  the  imperfection 
of  partial  development. 

(b)  Refutation. 

First.  This  contradicts  our  moral  nature.  No  man 
regards  himself  guilty  because  he  is  finite;  and  feels  it 
would  be  unjust  to  punish  him  for  it. 

Second.  The  cure  for  partial  development  would  not 
be  atonement  and  regeneration,  but  evolution;  and  that 
to  infinity  if  that  could  ever  be.  This  theory  is  what  Dr. 
Strong  calls  the  “green  apple  theory”  and  very  appropri¬ 
ately  remarks  that  “sin  is  not  a  green  apple  that  needs 
only  time  and  sunshine  and  growth  to  bring  it  to  ripeness 
and  beauty  and  usefulness;  but  sin  is  an  apple  with  a 
worm  at  its  heart.  The  evil  of  it  can  never  be  cured  by 
growth.” 

Third.  If  man  does  not  become  infinite  and  there¬ 
fore  cease  to  be  sinful  then  sin  must  be  eternal. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


179 


Fourth.  If  infinity  is  goodness  there  is  slight  hope 
for  any  man. 

Fifth.  Limitation  is  a  connatural  condition  of  man’s 
existence.  Therefore,  sin  is  chargeable  to  the  Creator,  if 
there  be  any  Creator  in  this  view. 

Sixth.  Jesus  Christ  because  finite  in  his  human  na¬ 
ture  must  have  been  a  sinner. 

Seventh.  Sin  is  not  negative;  it  is  a  positive  virile 
force. 

Eighth.  If  sin  be  limitation,  it  is  therefore  a  necessity 
to  all  finite  existence  and  leaves  no  place  for  liberty  or 
responsibility.  Thus  the  theory  overlooks  entirely  the 
moral  aspects  of  evil,  and  fails  to  distinguish  between  in¬ 
finite  good  and  infinite  extension. 

Ninth.  If  this  theory  were  true,  then  might  makes 
right;  the  great  and  strong  are  good,  and  the  weak  and 
poor  are  always  bad.  It  would  make  Satan  himself  a  com¬ 
paratively  good  being  because  a  great  and  powerful  spirit. 

3.  Defect. 

Another  theory  is  that  which  makes  sin  defect. 

Defect  is  the  absence  of  anything  that  belongs  to  the 
nature  of  a  thing.  That  a  stone  cannot  see  is  not  a  de¬ 
fect  of  the  stone  because  sight  does  not  belong  to  the 
nature  of  a  stone.  That  a  man  cannot  see  is  a  defect  of 
the  man  because  sight  belongs  to  the  nature  of  a  man. 

But  the  moral  judgment  of  the  world  declares  that 
this  is  not  sin.  There  is  no  ground  of  responsibility  in  a 
man’s  not  having  eyes,  or  arms,  or  limbs.  There  is  no 
ground  of  punishment  or  blameworthiness  in  it.  It  may 
be  a  misfortune  to  be  pitied  but  not  a  sin  to  be  condemned. 

This  is  true  of  physical  defect. 

But  there  is  a  sense  in  which  it  is  proper  to  say  that 
sin  is  defect.  It  is  moral  defect.  But  even  to  say  that  sin 
is  moral  defect  is  only  a  partial  definition  of  sin;  because 
it  embraces  only  the  subjective  fact  of  man’s  moral  nature, 
and  not  the  objective  fact  of  God’s  law  as  the  standard  of 
measurement  for  that  nature. 

4.  Selfishness. 

Another  theory  defines  sin  as  selfishness.  This  theory 
has  had  very  wide  acceptance  in  recent  decades. 


180 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


The  objections  to  it  as  an  adequate  definition  of  sin 
are  conclusive. 

(a)  Selfishness  must  come  under  the  category  of  sin; 
not  sin  under  the  category  of  selfishness.  The  larger  term 
embraces  the  smaller;  or  the  general  term  embraces  the 
particular.  Sin  is  the  larger  term  of  which  selfishness  is 
only  a  species. 

(b)  To  say  that  sin  is  selfishness  is  not  ultimate. 

We  are  bound  to  ask  the  question,  why  is  selfishness 
sin?  Why  is  selfishness  wrong?  Why  does  it  bring  con¬ 
viction  of  guilt?  Why  is  selfishness  blameworthy?  What 
makes  selfishness  sin? 

This  compels  us  to  give  a  reason  why  selfishness  is 
sin,  and  that  reason  forces  us  back  to  a  higher  law. 

The  theory  looks  too  exclusively  on  the  manward  side 
of  human  relations  and  responsibility,  and  leaves  out  of 
account  one  factor  that  explains  and  gives  force  to  every 
ethical  principle,  viz.  relationship  to  God. 

(c)  To  say  that  there  is  an  element  of  selfishness 
in  all  sin  is  not  sufficient.  The  statement  itself  is  doubt¬ 
ful.  A  man  might  sin  for  some  other  person’s  pleasure 
or  benefit,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  that  could  be  called  selfish¬ 
ness. 

Even  if  an  element  of  selfishness  is  found  in  all  sin  it 
would  not  prove  that  the  essence  of  sin  is  selfishness,  any 
more  than  showing  that  speech  belonged  to  all  men  would 
prove  that  the  essence  of  humanity  is  speech. 

.(d)  Some  would  use  the  word  self-li-ness  instead  of 
selfishness. 

The  theory  would  then  be  stated  thus:  God  is  the 
proper  center  of  the  soul,  and  sin  consists  in  putting  our¬ 
selves  in  the  place  of  God;  in  preferring  our  own  will  to 
the  will  of  God;  and  so  sin  is  selfishness. 

This  is  a  less  objectionable  form  of  the  theory,  but 
still  unsatisfactory  as  a  definition  of  sin. 

This  form  of  the  theory  admits  that  the  will  of  God 
is  paramount;  and  therefore  that  sin  must  be  defined  in 
reference  to  the  will  or  law  of  God.  The  evil  is  not  that 
man  walks  according  to  his  own  will  or  wish,  but  the  evil 
is  that  his  will  is  not  in  harmony  with  God’s  will. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


181 


The  evil  is  not  that  man  walks  in  his  own  ways  and 
delights  in  his  own  thoughts.  Every  sane  man  must  act 
in  accordance  with  his  own  mind  and  heart;  but  the  evil 
is  that  his  mind  and  heart  are  not  in  conformity  to  God. 

Even  this  form  of  the  theory  leaves  unanswered  the 
question,  why  self-li-ness  is  sin. 

5.  The  Evolutionary  Doctrine  of  Sin. 

The  Evolutionist  regards  sin  as  the  remains  of  the 
animal  nature  out  of  which  man  sprang.  It  is  derived 
from  his  animal  ancestry.  It  is  not  so  much  a  fall  from 
a  higher  level  as  a  failure  as  yet  to  rise  by  the  law  of 
evolution  to  a  higher  level. 

John  Fiske,  “Destiny  of  Man,”  103,  says:  “Original 
sin  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  brute  inheritance 
which  every  man  carries  with  him,  and  the  process  of 
evolution  is  an  advance  toward  true  salvation.” 

Objections. 

(a)  This  view  is  based  on  the  evolutionary  theory 
which  itself  is  not  proved. 

(b)  It  makes  sin  a  necessity;  being  the  product  of 
deterministic  laws. 

(c)  This  lays  the  responsibility  for  sin  on  the  Creator 
and  not  at  the  door  of  man’s  free  will.  Sin  must  be  re¬ 
ferred  ultimately  to  freedom  or  it  is  not  sin. 

If  man  were  an  animal  he  could  not  sin,  and  if  he 
can  sin  he  is  not  an  animal. 

(d)  It  makes  sin  to  arise  out  of  the  sensuous  nature, 
whereas  many  sins  such  as  anger,  pride  etc.,  are  not  sensu¬ 
ous  sins. 

(e)  If  sin  is  the  survival  of  brute  inheritance,  we 
have  no  ground  for  sin  in  Satan  and  fallen  angels. 

(f)  It  involves  the  absurdity  that  a  part  is  greater 
than  the  whole. 

According  to  this  theory  an  entire  animal  nature  is 
not  sinful,  but  the  mere  remains  of  that  animal  nature 
is  sin  in  its  deepest  guilt. 

6.  The  True  Definition  of  Sin. 

Shorter  Catechism  14.  What  is  sin  ?  Sin  is  any  want 
of  conformity  unto,  or  transgression  of  the  law  of  God. 


182 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


This  is  a  Scriptural  definition.  It  includes  the  exact 
elements  and  terms  set  forth  in  the  holy  Scriptures. 

I  Jno.  3:4.  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law. 

I  Jno.  5:17.  All  unrighteousness  is  sin. 

Here  are  both  the  transgression  and  the  want  of  con¬ 
formity  plainly  declared  to  be  sin. 

This  is  an  inspired  account  of  the  nature  of  sin,  and 
is  ultimate,  inclusive,  and  conclusive.  It  recognizes  both 
the  human  deficiency  and  the  objective  standard  of  moral 
measurement. 

The  true  nature  of  sin  is  contrariety  to  God,  which 
includes  all  phases  of  evil  and  is  not  reducible  to  lower 
terms. 

This  is  what  makes  sin  to  be  sin; — not  limitation, 
nor  selfishness,  nor  sensuousness,  but  discord  with  God. 
If  there  were  no  law  of  God  there  would  be  no  sin,  neither 
would  there  be  any  moral  good. 


Section  III.  Nature  of  Sin. 

1.  Not  a  corruption  of  the  substance  of  the  soul.  Not 
the  mixture  of  some  other  substance  with  the  soul.  After 
the  fall  the  soul  of  man  was  still  a  spiritual  substance, 
or  a  spiritual  substance  inhabiting  a  body. 

2.  But  a  corruption  of  the  faculties  and  especially 
of  the  moral  character  of  the  soul. 

3.  Has  relation  to  law,  i.  e.  the  law  of  God;  depart¬ 
ure  from  God  and  his  law. 

4.  Sin  includes  pollution  and  guilt. 

Guilt  embraces  two  ideas: — 

(a)  Blameworthiness. 

(b)  Liability  to  punishment. 

Christ  in  assuming  our  guilt  took  our  liability;  not 
our  blameworthiness. 

Section  IV.  Original  Sin. 

1.  Statement. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism  18.  Wherein  consists  the  sin¬ 
fulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell?  The  sinfulness 
of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  consists  in  the  guilt  of 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


183 


Adam’s  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  the 
corruption  of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called 
original  sin,  etc. 

The  word  “which”  may  grammatically  refer  to  all 
three  particuars,  or  only  to  the  last;  but  it  is  usual  to 
include  all  three  in  our  conception  of  original  sin.  This 
term  is  generally  used  to  designate  the  hereditary  moral 
corruption  common  to  all  men  at  birth. 

(b)  Henry  B.  Smith, — “Original  sin  means  in  theol¬ 
ogy  just  one  thing;  not  the  first  sin  of  Adam;  not  the 
first  sin  of  each  man;  but  the  general  condition  of  all  the 
members  of  the  race  by  birth,  before  actual  transgression, 
into  which  they  are  brought  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of 
Adam,  the  head  of  the  race.” 

(c)  The  formula  of  Concord,  the  best  expression  of 
Lutheranism  says : — “Christians  ought  not  only  to  acknow¬ 
ledge  and  define  actual  faults  and  transgressions  of  the  com¬ 
mands  of  God  to  be  sins,  but  they  ought  also  to  regard 
that  hereditary  disease  by  which  the  whole  nature  of  man 
is  corrupted,  as  a  specially  dreadful  sin,  and  indeed  as 
the  first  principle  and  source  of  all  other  sins  from  which 
all  other  transgressions  spring  as  from  their  root.” 

(d)  Calvin. 

Original  Sin  is  “an  hereditary  depravity  and  corrup¬ 
tion  of  our  nature,  diffused  through  all  parts  of  the  soul, 
rendering  us  obnoxious  (i.  e.  liable  or  subject)  to  the  Di¬ 
vine  wrath.” — “This  thing,  therefore,  should  be  strictly  ob¬ 
served:  namely,  that  our  nature  being  so  totally  vitiated 
and  depraved,  we  are,  on  account  of  this  very  corruption, 
considered  as  convicted,  and  justly  condemned  in  the  sight 
of  God,  to  whom  nothing  is  acceptable  but  righteousness, 
innocence  and  purity. 

“And  this  liability  to  punishment  arises  not  from  the 
delinquency  of  another;  for  when  it  is  said  that  the  sin 
of  Adam  renders  us  obnoxious  to  the  divine  judgment, 
it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if  we,  being  innocent,  were 
undeservedly  loaded  with  the  guilt  of  sin;  but,  because 
we  are  all  subject  to  a  curse  in  consequence  of  his  trans¬ 
gression,  he  is  therefore  said  to  have  involved  us  in  guilt. 

“Nevertheless  we  derive  from  him,  not  the  punishment 
only,  but  also  the  pollution  to  which  the  punishment  is 
justly  due.” — And  the  Apostle  himself  expressly  declares, 


184 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


that  death  has  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  have  sinned, 
— that  is,  have  been  involved  in  original  sin.  And  there¬ 
fore,  infants  themselves,  as  they  bring  their  condemnation 
into  the  world  with  them,  are  rendered  obnoxious  to  pun¬ 
ishment  by  their  own  sinfulness,  not  by  the  sinfulness 
of  another.  For  though  they  have  not  yet  produced  the 
fruits  of  their  iniquity,  yet  they  have  the  seed  of  it  with¬ 
in  them — whence  it  follows  that  this  native  depravity  is 
properly  accounted  sin  in  the  sight  of  God,  because  there 
could  be  no  guilt  without  crime.” — Institutes,  II.  1. 

(e)  The  Formula  Consensus  Helvetici. 

This  was  written  by  Turretine  and  Heidegger,  Swiss 
theologians,  and  is  one  of  the  best  statements  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  Original  Sin. 

“As  God  entered  into  a  covenant  of  works  with  Adam, 
not  only  for  himself  but  also  with  the  whole  human  race 
in  him  as  the  head  and  root,  so  that  the  posterity  who 
were  to  be  born  of  him  would  inherit  the  same  integrity 
with  which  he  was  created,  provided  he  should  continue 
in  it;  so  Adam  by  his  sad  fall  sinned  not  for  himself  only, 
but  for  the  whole  human  race  who  were  to  be  born,  and 
lost  the  blessings  promised  in  the  covenant.  We  are  of 
the  opinion  therefore  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed 
to  all  his  posterity  by  the  secret  and  just  judgment  of 
God.  For  the  Apostle  testifies  that  Tn  Adam  all  have 
sinned.  By  the  disobedience  of  one  many  were  made  sin¬ 
ners;’  and  Tn  Adam  all  die.’ 

“But  it  does  not  appear  how  hereditary  corruption, 
as  spiritual  death,  could  fall  upon  the  entire  human  race 
by  the  just  judgment  of  God,  unless  some  fault  of  this 
same  human  race,  bringing  in  the  penalty  of  that  death, 
had  preceded.  For  the  most  just  God,  the  judge  of  all 
the  earth,  punishes  none  but  the  guilty. 

“Wherefore  man,  previous  to  the  commision  of  any 
single  or  actual  transgression,  is  exposed  to  the  divine 
wrath  and  curse  from  his  very  birth,  and  this  in  a  two¬ 
fold  manner;  first,  on  account  of  the  transgression  and 
disobedience  which  he  committed  in  the  loins  of  Adam; 
and  secondly,  on  account  of  the  hereditary  corruption  in¬ 
herent  in  his  conception,  which  is  the  consequence  of  this 
primitive  transgression,  and  by  which  his  whole  nature 
is  depraved  and  spiritually  dead. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


185 


“Thus  it  appears  that  original  sin,  by  a  strict  dis¬ 
crimination,  is  twofold,  and  consists  of  the  imputed  guilt 
of  Adam’s  transgression  and  the  inherent  hereditary  cor¬ 
ruption  consequent  upon  this.” 

(f)  The  Arminian  view  of  Original  Sin  will  be  treated 
in  section  IX. 

2.  Proof  of  Original  Sin. 

(a)  From  the  Scriptures. 

Ps.  51:5.  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me. 

Gen.  8:21.  The  imagination  of  man’s  heart  is  evil  from  his 
youth. 

Matt.  7:16 — 19.  Grapes  of  thorns  or  figs  of  thistles? 

Job  14:4.  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean? 

Job  15:14.  What  is  man  that  he  should  be  clean  and  he  that 
is  born  of  woman  that  he  should  be  righteous? 

Jno.  3:6.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh. 

Ephes.  2:3.  We  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as 
others. 

Ps.  58:3.  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb;  they  go 
astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies. 

(b)  Proof  of  original  sin  is  found  in  the  universality 
of  sin  among  men. 

If  Adam’s  sin  were  nothing  but  a  bad  example,  as 
the  Pelagians  hold,  there  would  naturally  be  many  who 
would  escape  that  example. 

A  sense  of  sin  and  guilt  has  always  attended  the 
human  race. 

There  is  a  consciousness  of  sin  as  innate  and  this  con¬ 
sciousness  as  well  as  the  practice  of  sin  is  universal.  It 
is  explainable  on  the  ground  of  inborn  depravity. 

(c)  There  is  proof  of  original  sin  in  its  early  mani¬ 
festation. 

Before  observation,  training,  or  example  become  ef¬ 
fective  the  child  manifests  an  evil  nature. 

Ps.  58:3.  See  above. 

(d)  Our  ultimate  experience. 

The  interpretation  of  our  experience  and  consciousness 
in  regard  to  sin  leads  us  to  conclude  that  the  beginnings 
of  sin  in  us  cannot  be  limited,  or  ultimately  traced,  to  a 
definite  volition;  but  go  back  to  an  internal  bias  in  our 
natures  that  prompts  the  volition. 


186 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


There  is  in  us  what  is  termed  an  “immanent  prefer¬ 
ence”  for  evil.  This  preference  or  bias  constitutes  our 
character  out  of  which  our  choices  spring. 

3.  The  Nature  and  Effect  of  Original  Sin. 

Two  questions  arise  here;  is  original  sin  truly  of  the 
nature  of  sin,  and,  does  it  condemn  to  eternal  death?  Is 
the  race  as  a  race  lost  and  condemned  by  virtue  of  the 
original  transgression  ? 

Are  men  under  sentence  of  eternal  death  because  of 
original  sin,  or  only  for  actual  transgressions? 

The  answer  is,  that  original  sin  is  truly  of  the  nature 
of  sin  and  condemns  to  eternal  death. 

Observe : — 

(a)  The  Reformed  Confessions  recognize  this  to  be 

true. 

The  Form  of  Concord  describes  original  sin  as  “a  spec¬ 
ially  dreadful  sin.”  The  Consensus  Helvetici  says: 
“Wherefore  man  previous  to  the  commission  of  any  single 
or  actual  transgression  is  exposed  to  the  divine  wrath  and 
curse  from  his  very  birth.” 

Calvin  says:  “We  are  on  account  of  this  very  cor¬ 
ruption,  considered  as  convicted  and  justly  condemned  in 
the  sight  of  God,  to  whom  nothing  is  acceptable  but  right¬ 
eousness,  innocence,  and  purity.” 

Shorter  Catechism  19.  What  is  the  misery  of  that 
estate  into  which  man  fell? 

All  mankind  by  their  fall  lost  communion  with  God 
are  under  his  wrath  and  curse  and  so  made  liable  to  all 
the  miseries  of  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pains 
of  hell  forever. 

(b)  It  constitutes  our  character  as  evil.  An  evil 
character  is,  per  se,  spiritual  death.  If  original  sin  is  sin, 
then  inevitably  it  involves  spiritual  death. 

(c)  It  is  the  root  out  of  which  actual  sin  springs. 

The  root  cannot  be  better  than  the  fruit  which  it 
bears.  Sinfulness  attaches  to  character  which  lies  beneath 
and  before  all  actual  transgression.  “Out  of  the  heart 
proceed  evil  thoughts,  murder,  adulteries,  fornications, 
thefts,  false  witness.” 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


187 


(d)  It  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  sin  and 
condemnable. 

Rom.  6:6.  Our  old  man  is  crucified  that  the  body  of  sin  might 
be  destroyed. 

This  recognizes  the  sinfulness  of  the  old  unregener¬ 
ated  nature. 

Rom.  7:5.  When  we  were  in  the  flesh,  sinful  passions  wrought 
in  our  members. 

Gal.  5:24.  They  that  are  Christ’s  have  crucified  the  flesh  with 
its  affections  and  lusts. 

All  this  shows  that  the  inherent,  underlying  nature 
is  evil. 

Jas.  3:11,  12.  The  fountain  and  tree  produce  according  to  their 
nature. 

I  Cor.  15:22.  In  Adam  all  die. 

Rom.  5:14.  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses  even  over 
them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam’s  first  trans¬ 
gression. 

Rom.  5:16.  The  judgment  was  by  one  to  CONDEMNATION. 

Rom.  5:18.  By  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men 
to  CONDEMNATION. 

Rom.  5:12.  Death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  sinned. 

The  best  exegesis  of  this  verse  refers  the  “sinned” 
(a  definite  past  action)  to  the  sin  in  Adam;  and  thus 
asserts  that  death  temporal  and  eternal  was  the  penalty 
of  that  sin  for  all  men. 

(e)  The  penalty  of  spiritual  death  falls  on  all,  and 
this  is  evident  because  physical  death  falls  upon  infants 
who  have  not  actually  transgressed.  If  one  part  of  the 
penalty  of  original  sin  takes  effect  on  all,  it  is  logical  to 
conclude  that  the  other  part  does  also. 


Section  V.  Total  Depravity. 

1.  Total  depravity  does  not  mean  that  men  are  as 
bad  as  they  can  be,  but  that  the  whole  man  is  depraved 
by  sin. 

2.  This  depravity  affects  all  man’s  faculties. 

This  is  evident  because  it  is  the  whole  soul  that  thinks, 
and  the  whole  soul  that  feels  or  wills.  And  a  sinful  soul 
must  necessarily  affect  all  activities  of  that  soul  in  the 
exercise  of  its  faculties,  and  affect  them  according  to  its 
inherent  nature. 


188 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


3.  Even  the  body  is  affected  by  the  depravity  of  the 

soul. 

The  soul  commands  and  uses  the  body.  Not  being 
restrained  by  holy  dispositions,  but  driven  by  unholy  pro¬ 
clivities  the  appetites  and  passions  of  the  body  grow  to 
inordinate  proportions  affecting  the  whole  life  physical, 
as  well  as  moral. 

4.  The  depravity  of  human  nature,  and  not  the  loss 
of  any  faculty,  is  the  cause  of  inability. 

Section  VI.  The  Pelagian  View  of  Sin. 

1.  Sin  consists  in  voluntary  acts,  or  deliberate  choice 
of  evil. 

2.  Only  that  corruption  of  nature  which  is  the  result 
of  choice  is  sin. 

3.  Adam’s  sin  injured  only  himself.  There  is  no  orig¬ 
inal  sin.  No  imputation  but  only  imitation  of  Adam’s  sin. 

He  set  a  bad  example;  that  is  all.  No  corruption  of 
nature  from  Adam,  but  all  born  as  pure  as  Adam  at  crea¬ 
tion. 

4.  Man  can  do  all  that  is  required  of  him.  If  I  ought 
I  can.  Ability  limits  obligation.  No  obligation  where  there 
is  no  ability. 

5.  Men  may  live  without  sin,  and  often  do. 

6.  Salvation  is  man’s  own  act  choosing  the  right; 
man  saves  himself. 

7.  Fails  to  recognize  that  evil  character  is  the  cause 
of  evil  acts. 

Section  VII.  Semi-Pelagian  View  of  Sin. 

This  modified  the  Pelagian  view. 

1.  Man  is  not  dead  in  sin  but  sick.  Weakened  by 
the  fall. 

2.  Man  needs  the  help  of  divine  grace  in  salvation, 
to  complete  and  perfect  the  work. 

3.  Man  begins  the  work  of  reformation  and  God  as¬ 
sists  his  efforts. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


189 


Section  VIII.  The  Roman  Catholic  View  of  Sin. 

1.  Man  created  body  and  soul,  but  these  antagonistic 
to  each  other. 

2.  Original  righteousness  was  an  added  gift  to  har¬ 
monize  the  antagonistic  elements  of  matter  and  spirit  in 
man’s  constitution. 

3.  In  the  fall  man  lost  his  original  righteousness  and 
so  was  left  in  the  state  of  disharmony  in  which  he  was 
created. 

4.  Original  sin  is  the  loss  of  original  righteousness 
and  the  consequent  disharmony. 

5.  All  are  therefore  born  in  sin,  but  baptism  removes 
this  original  sin  and  leaves  nothing  in  the  soul  that  is 
properly  of  the  nature  of  sin.  However  all  may  sin  again 
because  of  remaining  concupiscence  (fomes,  fuel)  but  this 
concupiscence  is  not  of  the  nature  of  sin. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  thus  converts  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  into  the  doctrine  of  original  evil,  not  sin 
itself  but  fomes,  the  fuel  of  sin.  Considering  it  as  sensu¬ 
ous  or  physical  merely,  they  once  raised  the  questions: 
“What  is  the  particular  quality  of  the  body  in  which  this 
fomes  consists;  was  it  contracted  from  eating  the  apple, 
or  from  the  breath  of  the  serpent,  and  can  it  be  cured 
by  medicines?” 

6.  These  teachings  do  not  apply  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Section  IX.  The  Arminian  Doctrine  of  Sin. 

1.  The  Arminian  peculiarity  concerns  chiefly  the 
feature  of  original  sin. 

In  other  features  of  the  doctrine  of  sin  they  conform 
generally  to  the  position  of  the  other  reformed  churches. 

The  Arminian,  or  Remonstrant,  view  is  set  forth  by 
Episcopius  in  his  Confession  or  Declaration,  (Confessio 
sive  Declaratio  Remonstrantium) . 

It  is  further  explained  in  his  Apology  (Apologia  pro 
Confessione) . 

The  two  works  do  not  seem  to  harmonize  completely. 

The  Confession  reads:  Adam  transgressed  the  law  of 

God. 


190 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


“By  that  transgression  man  was  made  liable  to  eternal 
death  and  manifold  miseries ....  But  since  Adam  was  the 
stem  and  root  of  the  whole  race, — he  involved  all  his  pos¬ 
terity  in  the  same  death  and  misery,  and  implicated  them 
with  himself,  so  that  all  men  indiscriminately,  Jesus  Christ 
excepted,  through  this  one  single  sin  of  Adam,  have  been 
deprived  of  that  primitive  felicity,  and  have  lost  right¬ 
eousness  which  is  necessary  in  order  to  eternal  life,  and  thus 
are  born  even  now  exposed  to  that  death  which  we  have 
mentioned,  and  to  manifold  miseries. 

“And  this  is  commonly  denominated  original  sin.  In 
respect  to  which  nevertheless  the  doctrine  must  be  held 
that  the  most  benevolent  God  has  provided  for  all  a  remedy, 
for  that  general  evil  which  was  derived  to  us  from  Adam, 
free  and  gratuitous  in  his  beloved  Son  Jesus  Christ. 

“So  that  the  hurtful  error  of  those  is  plainly  apparent 
who  are  accustomed  to  found  on  that  sin  the  decree  of 
absolute  reprobation,  invented  by  themselves.” 

If  this  language  is  to  be  taken  at  its  face  value,  it 
teaches  that  original  sin  passed  to  all  men  by  natural  propa¬ 
gation  and  that  it  involved  all  men  in  the  penalty  of  eternal 
death. 

And  if  we  further  apprehend  this  reference  to  re¬ 
demption,  it  teaches  that  the  atonement  canceled,  in  lump 
sum,  or  by  job  lot,  as  it  were,  the  whole  racial  guilt  of 
original  sin,  leaving  man  liable  only  to  the  penalty  of  actual 
transgression. 

However,  in  the  “Apology,”  which  is  Episcopius’  de¬ 
fense  and  explanation  of  the  “Confession,”  it  is  shown  that 
original  sin  is  not  regarded  as  truly  and  properly  sin. 

The  Apology  reads:  “The  Remonstrants  do  not  regard 
original  sin  as  sin  properly  so  called,  which  renders  the 
posterity  of  Adam  deserving  of  the  hatred  of  God;  but 
as  an  evil,  infirmity,  injury,  or  by  whatever  other  name  it 
may  be  called,  which  is  propagated  to  his  posterity  by 
Adam  devoid  of  original  righteousness.  Whence  it  results 
that  all  the  posterity  of  Adam,  destitute  of  the  same  right¬ 
eousness  are  wholly  unfit  for  and  incapable  of  attaining  e- 
ternal  life, — except  God  by  his  new  grace  go  before  them 
and  restore  as  well  as  supply  new  strength  by  which  they 
may  attain  it. 

But  that  original  sin  is  not  evil  in  any  other  sense 
than  this — that  it  is  not  evil  in  the  sense  of  implying 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


191 


guilt  and  desert  of  punishment — is  plain.  It  is  not  evil 
in  the  sense  of  implying  guilt,  because  to  be  born  is  confes¬ 
sedly  an  involuntary  thing,  and  therefore  it  is  an  involun¬ 
tary  thing  to  be  born  with  this  or  that  stain,  infirmity, 
injury  or  evil. 

But  if  it  is  not  an  evil  in  the  sense  of  implying  guilt, 
then  it  cannot  be  an  evil  in  the  sense  of  desert  of  punish¬ 
ment,  because  guilt  and  punishment  are  correlated. — So 
far  therefore  as  original  sin  is  an  evil,  it  must  be  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  Remonstrants  define  the  term;  and  is 
called  original  sin  by  a  misuse  of  the  word  sin.” 

2.  Summary  of  special  points  in  the  old  Arminian- 

ism. 

(a)  Original  sin  is  not  properly  sin,  and  does  not 
condemn  to  eternal  death. 

(b)  Adam’s  guilt  was  individual  and  not  imputable 
to  posterity. 

(c)  Man  by  the  fall,  fell  heir  to  a  misfortune,  or 
evil  of  nature,  which  is  not  guilt. 

(d)  This  evil  attaches  to  the  physical  and  intellectual, 
but  not  to  the  voluntary  nature  of  man. 

It  becomes  the  occasion  of  actual  transgression;  but 
is  not  penal  or  condemnable. 

The  modern  doctrine  is  represented  by  Wesleyan 
Arminianism. 

3.  The  Wesleyan  Arminian  View  of  Sin. 

The  Wesleyan  view  modifies  slightly  the  old  Arminian 
view. 

The  Wesleyan  doctrines  were  expounded  by  Watson 
in  Britain  and  by  Whedon  and  others  in  America. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  the  modern  rep¬ 
resentative  of  Arminianism. 

Wesleyan  Arminianism  embraces  these  points: — 

(a)  Posterity  inherited  from  Adam  a  corrupt  and  sin¬ 
ful  nature. 

(b)  Man  is  now  born  with  a  corrupt  nature,  and  there¬ 
fore  unregenerate. 

(c)  But  men  are  not  born  with  guilt  in  the  sense 
of  liability  to  penalty. 


192 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


(d)  The  penalty  of  original  sin  is  removed,  job  lot, 
from  the  race  by  the  sacrifice  and  atonement  of  Christ, 
so  that  men,  though  born  with  a  corrupt  nature,  are  not 
condemnable  for  original  sin. 

(e)  Holy  ability  was  lost  to  man  in  the  fall,  so  that 
he  cannot  rehabilitate  himself ;  but  ability  to  co-operate 
with  grace  is  furnished  him  by  virtue  of  Christ’s  redemp¬ 
tion. 

(f)  Grace  sufficient  to  attain  eternal  life  is  given 
to  all  men  and  becomes  efficient  if  they  but  co-operate  with 
the  grace  given. 

This  grace  becomes  effective  by  human  co-operation 
and  thus  the  success  of  the  divine  influence  depends  upon 
the  use  which  man  makes  of  it;  or  in  other  words,  grace 
is  made  effective  by  man. 

(g)  Ability  to  co-operate  is  from  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(h)  By  some,  e.  g.  Whedon,  this  ability  was  an  obli¬ 
gation  or  debt  on  the  part  of  God.  However,  Paul  asserts 
that  salvation  is  of  grace. 

(i)  All  who  co-operate  and  persevere  to  the  end  are 
elected  to  be  saved,  making  election  conditional  upon  hu¬ 
man  effort. 

4.  Remarks  on  Arminianism  in  General. 

Arminianism  embraces  much  evangelical  truth,  but 
some  errors,  as  the  following  particulars  will  show. 

(a)  As  to  the  nature  of  Original  Sin. 

The  Scriptures  teach  that  man’s  moral  inheritance  from 
Adam  is  of  the  nature  of  sin,  and  that  all  men  are  under 
penalty  of  eternal  death.  We  are  by  nature  the  children 
of  wrath. 

Man  is  condemnable  for  what  he  is  as  well  as  for  what 
he  does.  The  depravity  of  nature  is  as  truly  heinous  in 
the  sight  of  God  as  the  actual  transgression  that  springs 
from  it. 

Arminianism  does  not  fully  recognize  the  evil  inher¬ 
ent  in  human  nature. 

(b)  As  to  universal  remission  of  original  sin. 

Appeal  is  made  to  Rom.  5:18.  The  free  gift  came  up¬ 
on  all  unto  justification  of  life. 

This  is  a  mistranslation;  not  “upon  all”  as  the  A.  V. 
has  it,  but  “unto  all”  as  the  R.  V. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


193 


A  misinterpretation  also,  as  it  would  express  universal 
salvation  if  given  the  sense  which  the  Arminians  have 
claimed. 

The  application  of  Christ’s  redemption  through  justi¬ 
fication  and  regeneration  is  personal  and  not  racial. 

There  is  a  common  grace,  but  this  of  itself  does  not 
remove  the  corruption  of  the  human  nature  nor  regenerate 
the  soul. 

(c)  That  God  is  under  obligation  to  afford  his  grace 
to  men,  and  that  it  is  a  matter  of  debt  or  justice  and 
not  an  unmerited  gratuity,  we  can  not  admit.  “By  grace 
are  ye  saved  through  faith.” 

(d)  The  Arminian  doctrine  of  grace  does  not  save 
men,  but  enables  man  to  save  himself.  It  makes  divine 
grace  and  purpose  dependent  on  the  human  will.  It  con¬ 
ditions  the  divine  on  the  human,  thus  making  the  divine 
in  some  sense  secondary. — “Through  faith,  and  that  not 
of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God.” 

Arminianism  offers  man  a  chance  of  salvation  instead 
of  salvation.  Adolph  Saphir  says:  “My  objection  to  the 
Arminian  or  semi-Arminian,  is  not  that  they  make  the 
entrance  very  wide ;  but  that  they  do  not  give  you  anything 
definite,  safe,  and  real  when  you  have  entered.  Do  not 
believe  the  Devil’s  gospel,  which  is  a  CHANCE  of  salvation; 
chance  of  salvation  is  chance  of  damnation.” 

(e)  If  all  are  born  with  a  corrupt  nature,  something 
more  is  necessary  than  grace-to-co-operate  for  those  in¬ 
capable  of  co-operation,  as  infants,  imbeciles,  and  other  in- 
capables. 

Only  sovereign  election  and  sovereign  grace  will  apply 
in  such  case. 

(f)  The  Arminian  doctrine  of  salvation  divides  the 
efficiency  between  the  divine  and  human  wills. 

The  Calvinistic  doctrine  assigns  the  efficiency  to  God’s 
will,  and  makes  human  co-operation  the  effect  of  divine 
grace. 

The  former  is  called  synergism,  the  latter,  monergism. 

“The  dependence  upon  grace  in  the  Arminian  system 
is  partial;  in  the  Calvinistic  system  is  total.” — Shedd. 


194 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Section  X.  View  of  Pantheistic  Theologians. 

The  view  of  Pantheism  has  been  fairly  presented  in 
the  section  which  treated  of  sin  as  Limitation  of  Being, 
or  Finiteness. 

That  treatment  considered  sin  chiefly  from  the  philo¬ 
sophical  view-point.  There  is  another  shade  of  meaning 
that  arises  from  the  religious  point  of  view. 

The  philosophy  of  Spinoza  and  the  psychology  of  Kant 
contributed  a  powerful  influence  to  theological  speculation. 

Fichte,  Schelling,  Hegel,  Schleiermacher,  and  the  New 
England  transcendentalists  were  among  those  thus  affected. 

These  were  not  all  out-and-out  Pantheists,  but  all  were 
strongly  colored  by  Pantheism.  Their  system  of  thought 
or  doctrine,  if  we  may  call  it  such,  was  semi-Pantheistic, 
semi-idealistic,  semi-philosophic  and  semi-religious. 

Schleiermacher  especially  has  left  an  influence  on  mod¬ 
ern  theology,  greater  than  was  deserving,  and  regarded 
himself  and  is  regarded  as  a  Christian  theologian.  He 
was  indeed  sincerely  devoted  to  Jesus  Christ  though  he 
repudiated  the  Old  Testament,  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  even  left  the  personality  of  God  as  an 
open  question. 

The  following  particulars  represent  the  Pantheistic 
theology  in  its  characteristic  form,  and  show  how  sin  is 
defined  under  this  conception. 

1.  There  is  an  eternal  and  absolute  being  (called  God) 
impersonal  but  omnipotent,  out  of  which  all  things  have 
developed. 

2.  This  being  comes  into  form  in  the  visible  universe 
and  reaches  its  highest  development  in  the  consciousness 
of  man. 


3.  Man  has  a  world-consciousness,  or  a  consciousness 
affected  by  the  world. 

4.  Man  has  also,  or  should  have,  a  God-conscious¬ 
ness,  i.  e.  a  consciousness  that  God,  the  absolute  and  eternal 
being,  is  within  him. 

5.  This  is  religion.  Religion  consists  in  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  fact  that  God,  the  primal  being,  is  the  only 
cause;  and  that  we  are  only  the  form  in  which  his  (its) 
causality  is  revealed  or  exercised. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


195 


6.  The  ideal  state  of  man  consists  in  control  by  the 
God-consciousness,  and  its  absolute  predominance  over  the 
world-consciousness. 

7.  Sin  therefore  is  the  lack  of  that  control  or  pre¬ 
dominance  of  the  God-consciousness. 


Chapter  X.  Inability. 


Section  I.  Various  Views. 

1.  The  Pelagian  View:  Man  has  no  inability;  but 
has  full  ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires.  There  is  no 
need  of  regeneration,  or  any  divine  grace  in  sanctification 
or  spiritual  growth. 

2.  The  Semi-Pelagian  View:  Man  was  weakened  by 
the  fall;  but  not  all  ability  was  lost.  He  needs  divine 
grace  to  assist  his  personal  efforts. 

3.  The  Augustinian  or  Calvinistic  View. 

Man  is  totally  disabled  by  the  fall,  and  so  wholly  de¬ 
pendent  on  the  Spirit  of  God  for  the  inception  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  spiritual  life. 

The  first  view  says  man  is  well;  the  second  that  he 
is  sick;  and  the  third  that  he  is  dead. 


Section  II.  What  Inability  is  not. 

1.  It  is  not  the  loss  of  any  faculty  of  the  soul; — 
intellect,  feeling,  will  or  conscience. 

2.  It  is  not  the  loss  of  free  agency. 

3.  It  does  not  mean  that  fallen  man  possesses  no 
virtues.  Fallen  and  unregenerate  men  often  display  many 
qualities  that  are  admirable. 

4.  It  does  not  mean  lack  of  capacity  to  know  God 
and  receive  grace. 


196 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


Section  III.  The  doctrine  of  Inability  means: — 

1.  That  fallen  man  is  unable  to  keep  God’s  law  and 
merit  life  by  his  works. 

2.  That  man  is  unable  to  reinstate  himself  in  God’s 
favor. 

3.  That  he  is  unable  to  change  his  nature,  regenerate 
himself,  and  become  holy. 

4.  That  he  is  unable  to  exercise  right  affection  or 
inclination  toward  God. 

5.  That  this  inability  is  self-acquired  by  the  race  and 
therefore  culpable. 

6.  Inability  is  not  an  inability  to  exercise  volitions; 
but  an  inability  to  be  willing  to  exercise  holy  volitions. 

Section  IV.  Proof  of  Inability. 

Jno.  3:3.  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God. 

Jno.  3:6.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  spirit  is  spirit. 

Jno.  6:44.  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  who 
hath  sent  me  draw  him. 

Jno.  15:4,  5.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself  except 
as  it  abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  you  expect  ye  abide  in  me. 

Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing. 

Rom.  8:7.  The  carnal  mind  is  emnity  against  God  and  is 
not  subject  to  the  law  of  God  neither  indeed  can  be;  so  then  they 
that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God. 

I  Cor.  15:10.  By  the  grace  of  God  I  am  what  I  am. 

II  Cor.  3:5.  Not  sufficient  of  ourselves  to  think  any  good  thing. 

I  Cor.  4:7.  Who  maketli  thee  to  differ  and  what  hast  thou 

that  thou  didst  not  receive? 

Ephes.  2:8.  By  grace  have  ye  been  saved  through  faith  and 
that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 

Catechism  82.  Is  any  man  able  perfectly  to  keep  the 
commandments  of  God? 

No  mere  man  since  the  fall  is  able,  in  this  life,  perfectly, 
to  keep  the  commandments  of  God;  but  doth  daily  break 
them  in  thought,  word  and  deed. 

Section  V.  What  can  man  do  in  his  salvation? 

1.  He  can  hear  God’s  message  concerning  himself  and 
learn  of  his  sinfulness  and  inability. 

2.  He  can  examine  the  perfection  of  God’s  law  and 
discover  how  far  he  falls  short  of  it. 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


197 


3.  He  can  try  to  obey  that  law,  which  will  still  more 
convince  him  of  his  inability. 

4.  He  can  learn  that  there  is  no  hope  for  him  without 
divine  grace. 

5.  He  can  call  on  God  to  do  the  work  that  he  cannot 
do  himself;  he  can  say  with  David:  “Create  in  me  a  clean 
heart  0  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me.” 

Even  this  implies  that  God’s  grace  has  been  active  in 
awakening  him  to  a  sense  of  his  danger  and  guilt.  And 
besides  it  is  all  of  God’s  grace  that  the  means  are  furnished 
to  instruct  him,  and  warn  him,  and  point  the  way  of  safety 
and  life. 

Section  VI,  Objections  Answered. 

1.  If  not  able  then  not  under  obligation  to  keep  God’s 

law. 

That  depends  on  how  the  inability  arose.  If  it  is  a 
created  inability  then  there  can  be  no  obligation;  but  if 
acquired  the  obligation  remains. 

2.  If  unable  to  obey  divine  law  then  we  are  not  free. 

This  objection  grows  out  of  a  confused  idea  of  free¬ 
dom.  A  man  is  a  slave  to  sin  but  acts  out  his  own  inherent 
proclivities  and  so  is  free. 

Question  is  asked:  Can  a  sinner  repent  if  he  will? 

That  depends  on  the  meaning  of  “will.”  If  by  “will” 
we  mean  inclination  being  willing  on  the  whole,  then  the 
answer  is  Yes.  But  that  it  itself  repentance;  and  merely 
means  can  a  sinner  repent  if  he  repents? 

If  by  “Will”  we  mean  volition,  the  answer  is,  No,  for 
a  man  cannot  change  his  nature  by  a  mere  volition. 

3.  If  no  ability,  nothing  to  do.  Ans:  I  cannot  heal 
myself  but  can  apply  to  the  physician.  Shown  above  what 
a  man  can  do. 

4.  If  must  depend  on  God  must  wait  his  time.  God’s 
time  is  now.  If  man  feels  his  own  ability  he  will  take  his 
own  time. 

5.  Why  command  a  man  to  do  what  he  cannot  ?  Be¬ 
cause  God  bids  us  to  do  so.  And  further  God  supplies  the 
needed  grace,  “My  grace  is  sufficient,” 


PART  FOURTH,  SOTERIOLOGY. 

Index  Page. 

Chapter  I.  Presuppositions  of  Soteriology. 

Chapter  II.  God’s  Purpose  to  Save. 

Section  I.  The  Order  of  the  Decrees. 

Section  II.  The  Covenant  of  Redemption. 

Section  III.  The  Covenant  of  Grace. 

Section  IV.  The  Doctrine  of  Election. 

Section  V.  Various  Views  of  the  Nature  of  Election. 

Chapter  III.  The  Historical  Antecedents  of  Redemption. 

Section  I.  The  Typology  of  the  Scriptures. 
Section  II.  Prophecy. 

Section  III.  The  Heathen  Religions. 

Section  IV.  The  Conclusions  of  Human  Speculation 

and  Philosophy. 

Section  V.  The  Awakening  of  Universal  Expecta¬ 
tion. 

Section  VI.  A  Growing  Revelation. 

Chapter  IV.  The  Redeemer. 

Section  I.  The  Incarnation. 

Section  II.  The  Person  of  Christ. 

Section  III.  Christ’s  Mediatorial  Offices. 


Chapter  V.  The  Atonement. 


Section  I. 
Section  II. 
Section  III. 
Section  IV. 

Section  V. 
Section  VI. 
Section  VII. 
Section  VIII. 

Section  IX. 
Section  X. 


The  Importance  of  the  Doctrine. 

Terms  Defined. 

The  Two-fold  Work  of  the  Atonement. 

The  Atonement  Expresses  the  Total 
Divine  Nature. 

The  Main  Features  of  the  Atonement. 
Objections  to  the  Atonement. 

Theories  of  the  Atonement. 

The  Vicarious  Versus  the  Moral-Influ¬ 
ence  View. 

Eternal  Atonement. 

Union  of  Objective  and  Subjective. 


—198 


The  following  chapters  dealing  with  the  application 
of  the  atonement  may  be  called  Pneumatology,  or  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  though  properly  a  part  of  Soteriology. 

Chapter  VI.  Vocation. 

Chapter  VII.  Grace. 


Chapter  VIII.  Regeneration. 


Chapter  IX.  Faith. 
Chapter  X.  Conversion. 
Chapter  XI.  Justification. 


Section 

Section 

Section 

Section 

Section 

Section 


I.  Definitions  of  Justification. 

II.  The  Nature  of  Justification. 

III.  The  Ground  of  Justification. 

IV.  The  Means,  Condition  or  Instrumental 

Cause. 

V.  The  Effect  of  Justification. 

VI.  Difficulties  and  Objections. 


Chapter  XII.  Sanctification. 


Section  I.  Differs  from  Justification. 

Section  II.  Definition  of  Sanctification. 

Section  III.  A  Supernatural  Work. 

Section  IV.  Agency  and  Means  of  Sanctification. 
Section  V.  Effect  of  Sanctification. 

Section  VI.  Perfectionism. 


Chapter  XIII.  Perseverance. 

Section  I.  Statement. 

Section  II.  Proof. 

Section  III.  Objections. 

Section  IV.  Answers  to  Objections. 

Chapter  XIV.  The  Sacraments. 

Section  I.  Definition. 

Section  II.  Efficiency  of  the  Sacraments. 
Section  III.  The  Number  of  the  Sacraments. 
Section  IV.  Baptism. 

Section  V.  The  Lord’s  Supper. 


—199— 


PART  FOURTH,  SOTERIOLOGY. 


Soteriology,  (soteria  logos)  means  the  doctrine  con¬ 
cerning  salvation.  In  general  it  embraces,  God’s  purpose 
to  save,  the  person  and  work  of  the  Redeemer,  and  the 
application  of  redemption  by  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men. 


Chapter  I.  The  Presuppositions  of  Soteriology. 

By  this  is  meant  the  basal  facts  on  which  the  doctrine 
of  Soteriology  rests. 

1.  God’s  sovereign  rule.  God  as  creator,  ruler  and 
saviour  underlies  all  the  provisions  of  salvation. 

2.  Man’s  responsibility  to  his  creator,  and  his  capac¬ 
ity  for  weal  and  woe. 

3.  The  covenant  of  works,  expressing  God’s  will  and 
man’s  obligation. 

(a)  The  law  of  God  requires  perfect  obedience. 

God  as  a  perfect  being  cannot  require  less  than  perfec¬ 
tion  in  his  moral  law. 

Matt.  5:48.  Be  ye  perfect  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect. 

I  Pet.  1:16.  It  is  written:  Be  ye  holy  for  I  am  holy. 

I  Jno.  5:17.  All  unrighteousness  is  sin. 

(b)  That  law  cannot  be  lowered.  There  can  be  no 
partial  abrogation  of  God’s  law  on  account  of  man’s  ina¬ 
bility.  That  law  must  be  met  to  the  last  letter. 

God’s  law  expresses  his  essential  being.  All  God’s 
laws  are  in  harmony  with  immutable  right  and  truth.  God’s 
law  can  no  more  be  set  aside  than  the  attributes  of  his  na¬ 
ture  can  be  set  aside. 

Mercy  can  not  infringe  on  justice,  else  there  would  be 
disharmony  among  the  attributes  of  God’s  being.  Hence 
the  necessity  of  an  expiatory  atonement  that  expressed 
justice  and  mercy  alike  and  maintained  the  harmony  of 
the  divine  nature. 

To  abrogate  God’s  laws  is  to  abrogate  God’s  essential 
nature. 


—200— 


SOTERIOLOGY 


201 


4.  Man’s  fall. 

(a)  This  involves  his  condemnation  and  sentence  to 
death. 

(b)  His  original  sin,  corruption  of  nature,  and  ina¬ 
bility. 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts  Soteriology  proceeds. 


Chapter  II.  God’s  Purpose  to  Save  Men. 

Section  I.  This  involves  the  order  of  the  decrees. 

This  refers  to  the  logical  order  in  thought  rather  than 
to  a  chronological  order,  inasmuch  as  the  decrees  of  God 
may  be  considered  to  be  simultaneous  in  respect  to  time. 

1.  The  Spra-lapsarian  view. 

This  as  the  term  indicates  puts  the  decree  of  election 
before  that  of  permitting  the  fall. 

The  order  therefore  would  stand  thus: — 

(a)  The  decree  to  save  some  and  reprobate  others. 

(b)  The  decree  to  create  both  classes  for  these  ends. 

(c)  The  decree  to  permit  the  fall. 

(d)  The  decree  to  provide  a  salvation  for  the  elect. 

2.  The  Sub-lapsarian  view. 

This  as  the  term  indicates  is  that  the  decree  to  elect 
is  logically  subsequent  to  the  decree  to  permit  the  fall. 

The  decree  to  elect  contemplates  men  as  already  fallen. 
The  order  then  would  read  thus: — 

(a)  The  decree  to  create. 

(b)  The  decree  to  permit  the  fall. 

(c)  The  decree  to  provide  salvation  sufficient  for  all. 

(d)  The  decree  to  secure  the  application  of  this  sal¬ 
vation  to  some. 

Note — Dr.  A.  H.  Strong  gives  this  order, 


202 


SOTERIOLOGY 


3.  The  Sub-lapsarian  limited — atonement  view. 

This  makes  (e)  and  (d)  of  the  above  order  exchange 
places. 

The  decree  to  provide  salvation  having  reference  specif¬ 
ically  and  only  to  the  elect;  thus  limited  in  its  purpose 
and  effect. 

The  order  would  read  thus: — 

(a)  To  create. 

(b)  To  permit  the  fall. 

(c)  To  elect  some. 

(d)  To  provide  salvation  for  those  elected. 

This  puts  the  purpose  of  the  application  into  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  making.  It  may  be  said  in  behalf  of  the  latter 
view  that  God  must  have  intended  what  has  taken  place, 
and  if  the  atonement  is  limited  in  its  application  God  must 
have  intended  it  so  to  be,  and  thus  it  is  limited  in  its  pur¬ 
pose;  that  the  purpose  of  God  must  conform  to  the  event, 
else  God’s  purposes  fail.  All  this  is  undeniable.  However, 
whatever  limitations  there  are  may  be  better  conceived 
of  and  treated  as  belonging  to  the  application  than  to  the 
making  of  the  atonement. 

It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  atonement  is  infinite 
in  its  inherent  value,  capable  of  universal  application,  and 
that  God’s  purpose  must  have  embraced  the  making  of 
such  an  atonement,  but  limited  in  its  application  to  those 
who,  in  God’s  wise  choice,  are  the  recipients  of  his  ef¬ 
ficacious  grace. 

Section  II.  The  covenant  of  redemption. 

1.  Catechism  20.  Did  God  leave  all  mankind  to  per¬ 
ish  in  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery?  God  having  out  of 
his  mere  good  pleasure  from  all  eternity  elected  some  to 
everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace,  to  deliver 
them  out  of  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery  and  to  bring  them 
into  an  estate  of  salvation  by  a  Redeemer. 

2.  There  was  such  a  covenant  made. 

(a)  The  parties  to  the  covenant,  the  Father  and  the 

Son. 

Jno.  6:37.  All  that  the  Father  giveth  to  me  shall  come  to  me. 

Tno.  6:39.  Of  all  that  he  hath  given  me  I  should  lose  none. 

Jno.  8:42.  Neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me, 

Jno.  10:29.  My  Father  who  gave  them  me,  etc. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


203 


(b)  The  plan  of  the  covenant  was  to  save  man  by 
a  redeemer,  who  should  become  a  substitute  for  man,  bear 
the  penalty  of  his  sin,  fulfill  all  the  demands  of  God’s  law, 
justify  or  acquit  the  sinner  on  condition  of  faith,  restore 
him  to  God’s  favor,  sanctify  him  wholly  and  glorify  him 
forever. 

(c)  This  covenant  was  made  in  eternity,  but  takes 
effect  in  time. 

It  first  appears  in  human  history  at  the  fall  in  the 
promise  of  a  redeemer. 


Section  III.  The  Covenant  of  Grace. 

Issuing  from  the  covenant  of  redemption  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  the  covenant  of  grace  between  God 
and  man. 

1.  The  plan  of  salvation  is  always  presented  as  a 
covenant,  with  parties,  conditions,  promises,  and  penalties. 

2.  The  covenant  of  grace  takes  the  place  of  the  coven¬ 
ant  of  works  in  which  man  failed  through  the  fall. 

3.  The  covenant  is  the  same  in  all  dispensations, 
patriarchal,  Mosaic  and  Christian. 

To  Adam  was  given  the  promise  of  a  redeemer,  and 
rites  and  sacrifices  instituted  to  prefigure  the  atonement.* 

To  Noah  after  the  flood  the  covenant  was  renewed. 

With  Abraham  and  his  seed  the  covenant  was  re-estab¬ 
lished. 

Moses  and  Israel  embraced  that  covenant  as  a  national 
obligation.  The  gospel  in  the  New  Testament  is  still  the 
proclamation  of  the  covenant. 


*Some  Modernists  who  are  obsessed  with  what  they  call  Prog¬ 
ress”  assert  that  the  system  of  sacrifices  and  burnt  offerings  which 
the  patriarchs  offered  to  God  and  which  Moses  incorporated  into 
the  religious  rites  of  Israel,  were  the  remains  of  paganism  which 
as  yet  had  not  been  outgrown;  but  which  God  tolerated  and  regu¬ 
lated  till  the  progress  of  loftier  ideas  induced  the  prophets  to  de¬ 
nounce  and  repudiate  them  and  finally  led  to  their  discontinuance. 

On  this  view  what  typical  or  prophetical  function  would  re¬ 
main  to  them?  Were  they  the  dregs  of  paganism  or  types  of  re¬ 
demption? 


204 


SOTERIOLOGY 


4.  The  condition  is  the  same  in  all  dispensations. 
Faith  in  a  redeemer  to  come  held  the  same  place  as  faith 
in  a  redeemer  already  come. 

5.  Christ  is  the  redeemer  in  all  dispensations. 

The  Old  Testament  saints  were  saved  not  by  the  works 
of  the  law  but  by  faith  in  a  redeemer  to  come. 

Gal.  3:18.  For  if  the  inheritance  is  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more 
of  promise;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promise. 


Section  IV.  The  Doctrine  of  Election. 

1.  Scriptural  statement. 

Ephes.  1:4.  According  as  he  chose  us  in  him  before  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  world. 

Ephes.  1:5.  Having  in  love  predestinated  us  for  adoption  as 
sons  through  Jesus  Christ  to  himself  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  his  will. 

Jno.  15:16.  Ye  have  not  chosen  me  but  1  have  chosen  you. 

Jno.  15:19.  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world. 

Acts  22:14.  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee  that 
thou  shouldst  know  his  will,  and  see  the  Righteous  One  and  hear 
the  voice  of  his  mouth. 

Rom.  8:29,  30.  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  pre¬ 
destinate,  etc. 

II  Thess.  2:13.  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to 
salvation. 

I  Pet.  1:2.  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God — 
unto  obedience. 

I  Pet.  2:9.  But  ye  are  a  chosen  generation — who  hath  called 
you  out  of  darkness. 

Isa.  41:9.  Shows  God’s  distinguishing  choice. 

Jno.  6:37.  All  that  the  Father  giveth  to  me  shall  come  to  me. 

Jno.  6:44.  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  who 
hath  sent  me  draw  him. 

Acts  13:48.  And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life 
believed. 

Rom.  11:5.  — a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace, 

and  if  by  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works. 

Rom.  9:11.  For  the  children  not  yet  being  born — that  the 
purpose  of  God,  according  to  election  might  stand. 

Ephes.  2:10.  We  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works  which  God  made  ready  beforehand,  that  we  should 
walk  in  them. 

These  passages  and  others  show  that  God  elects  men 
to  salvation. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


205 


2.  The  extent  of  the  elective  decree. 

How  far  does  it  apply  in  the  plan  of  salvation? 

A  general  view  of  the  plan  is  as  follows — 

Purpose  to  save. 

Choice  of  Redeemer. 

Sending  him  in  the  incarnation. 

Making  the  atonement. 

Offer  of  salvation  to  men. 

Sending  the  gospel  to  the  nations,  Europe,  America,  etc. 

Proclaiming  it  in  local  churches. 

Bringing  the  external  call  to  the  individual. 

Persuasion  by  the  Spirit  to  accept  the  call. 

Regeneration  of  all  who  accept. 

Regeneration  of  some  who  never  heard  the  call. 

Regeneration  of  incapables,  e.  g.  infants,  imbeciles,  etc. 

Regeneration  of  some  who  refused,  making  them  will¬ 
ing  by  special  grace. 

Passing  by  some  who  persistently  refuse. 

Using  this  enumeration  as  a  merely  tentative  or  rough 
outline  of  events  in  the  plan,  the  question  is,  how  far  down 
the  line  does  the  decree  of  election  extend? 

Does  it  stop  short  of  the  individual  at  any  point  in 
the  line? 

Is  election  racial,  national,  general,  or  personal? 

Is  it  merely  a  purpose  to  save,  without  terminating 
on  a  particular  object? 

What  is  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  election? 

A  study  of  the  Scriptural  passages  will  determine  the 
answer. 

A  careful  observation  of  the  passages  adduced  will 
reveal  that  the  Scriptures  teach  an  election  that  is  personal. 

No  other  interpretation  can  be  put  on  the  texts  that 
embody  the  doctrine. 


Section  V.  Various  Views  of  the  Nature  and  Ground 
of  Election. 

The  doctrine  of  election  is  a  common  doctrine  of  Chris¬ 
tendom. 

Practically  all  eveangelical  churches  hold  the  doctrine 
of  election  in  one  form  or  another.  There  is  however, 


206 


SOTERIOLOGY 


some  variety  of  view  as  the  following  discussion  will  show. 

1.  Conditional  Election. 

This  view  regards  election  as  entirely  conditional. 

The  election  rests  on  the  condition  of  faith  and  holy 
living.  God’s  decree  determines  to  save  the  believer  and 
condemn  the  unbeliever,  to  reward  the  righteous  and  pun¬ 
ish  the  wicked. 

Farther  than  that  the  decree  does  not  extend.  The 
condition  is  supplied  by  the  undetermined  will  of  man. 

This  view  has  its  evident  weakness. 

1st.  If  anything  is  undetermined  it  cannot  be  fore¬ 
known. 

A  purely  conditional  election  renders  nothing  certain 
and  therefore  the  elect  are  outside  the  compass  of  God’s 
knowledge. 

The  Socinians  were  frank  enough  to  admit  that  God 
cannot  know  the  uncertain  actions  of  men. 

The  Arminians  were  less  consistent  in  shrinking  from 
such  a  conclusion. 

2nd.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  divine  decree  is 
immutable. 

Isa.  46:10.  Declaring  the  end  from  the  beginning — my  counsel 
shall  stand  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure. 

Rom.  9:11.  — not  of  works  but  of  him  that  calleth. 

Whatever  rests  wholly  on  the  human  will  must  be 
mutable,  for  the  human  will  is  mutable. 

3rd.  “Faith  is  the  gift  of  God;”  if  the  gift  of  God,  it 
is  not  wholly  separable  from  the  divine  decree. 

4th.  The  language  of  the  Scriptures  show  that  elec¬ 
tion  is  personal,  and  that  men  are  elected  TO  faith  and 
holiness;  therefore  a  conditional  election  does  not  corre¬ 
spond  to  the  Scriptural  representations  in  the  matter. 

That  election  is  personal  is  shown  by: — 

Phil.  4:3.  — whose  names  are  in  the  book  of  life. 

Heb.  12:23.  — who  are  registered  in  heaven. 

I  Thess.  1:4.  Knowing,  brethern  beloved  of  God,  your  election. 

That  election  is  to  faith  and  good  works  is  seen  in: — 

Acts  13:48.  — and  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life 

believed. 

Jno.  15:16.  — and  ordained  you,  that  you  should  go  and  bring 

forth  fruit. 

Ephes.  2:10.  — created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works. 

I  Pet.  1:2.  Elect — unto  obedience. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


207 


If  election  is  unto  faith  and  good  works,  then  faith 
and  good  works  can  not  be  the  condition  of  election. 

2.  The  Doctrine  of  Limited  Objective. 

This  view  does  not  concern  the  ground  of  the  elective 
decree,  but  the  extent  of  it;  or  the  terminus  ad  quern. 

Under  this  view  may  be  included  all  schemes  that  stop 
short  of  the  election  of  the  individual  to  salvation. 

John  Milton  held  that  “there  is  no  particular  pre¬ 
destination  or  election  but  only  general. ” 

Some  limit  the  divine  decree  to  the  predestination  of 
certain  nations,  communities,  and  generations  to  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  true  religion,  and  the  external  privileges  of  the 
gospel. — So  Archbishop  Sumner. 

The  gospel  has  come  to  Europe  and  America  while  the 
orient  has  lain  in  darkness  and  the  curse  of  false  religions. 
This  great  fact  we  must  all  admit;  but  does  this  exhaust 
the  meaning  of  the  term  “election?” 

Others  make  election  terminate  on  the  outward  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  the  individual.  Archbishop  Whately  says: 
“Election  is  the  choice  of  individual  men  to  membership 
in  the  external  church  and  the  means  of  grace.” 

No  man  ever  had  a  chance  to  choose  when  or  where 
he  would  be  born,  whether  his  parents  should  be  heathen 
or  Christian,  moral  or  depraved.  Providence  casts  some 
into  favorable,  and  some  into  unfavorable  circumstances. 
Some  have  the  benefit  of  the  means  of  grace  from  infancy, 
and  some  enjoy  little  or  none  of  these  advantages.  All 
these  things  are  due  to  God’s  over-ruling  providence,  and 
not  to  human  choice. 

But  is  this  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  election?  Does 
God’s  decree  determine  the  external  circumstances  and  stop 
there?  What  is  the  ultimate  objective  of  election?  Is  it 
circumstantial  or  personal? 

Lay  these  views  side  by  side  with  the  passages  from 
God’s  word  teaching  the  doctrine  of  election  and  it  will 
be  seen  wherein  they  fall  short. 

3.  Arminianism. 

(a)  The  old  Arminians  held  that  election  was  general, 
not  personal;  that  the  decree  of  election  did  not  concern 
individuals  but  was  God’s  purpose  to  save  believers  as  a 
class. 


208 


SOTERIOLOGY 


(b)  Modern  Arminianism  teaches  that  foreseen  faith 
and  works  is  the  ground  of  election.* 

What  appeal  can  be  made  to  Scripture  to  sustain  this 
position?  The  following: — 

Rom.  8:29.  Whom  he  did  foreknow  he  also  did  predestinate. 

I  Pet.  1:2.  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God. 

Answer: — The  passage  in  Peter  is  uncertain  in  trans¬ 
lation,  and  probably  has  no  such  meaning.  See  Revised 
Version. 

The  passage  in  Romans  doubtless  refers  to  God’s  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  persons  whom  he  would  elect,  not  to  foreseen 
faith  as  the  ground  of  election.  It  does  not  say  that  fore¬ 
seen  faith  is  the  ground  of  election,  but  only  that  God  fore¬ 
knew  the  individuals  to  whom  he  would  extend  the  grace 
of  election. 

(c)  Difficulties  of  Arminianism. 

It  lacks  Scriptural  support. 

It  leaves  no  basis  for  foreknowledge. 

How  can  God  foreknow  unless  he  first  determines? 
Foreknowledge  rests  on  predetermination.  Nothing  can  be 
foreknown  unless  it  is  certainly  determined. 

Arminianism  makes  man  elect  himself,  and  there  is 
therefore  no  real  election  by  God.  If  election  depends  on 
man’s  faith  and  works,  then  man  is  the  agent  of  his  own 
election;  but  all  Scriptural  representation  refers  election 
to  God.  And  if  it  be  said:  But  God  secures  the  faith  and 
works  as  the  ground  of  election,  then  that  is  but  to  postu¬ 
late  God’s  purpose  prior  to  man’s. 

The  salvation  of  infants,  imbeciles,  unconscious  dying 
sinners,  and  some  heathen,  if  they  are  saved  at  all,  must 
depend  on  the  mere  choice  of  God  and  not  on  foreseen  faith 
and  works. 

The  Arminians  are  fond  of  quoting:  “Whosoever  will 
let  him  come,”  or  Whosoever  believeth,”  implying  that  be¬ 
lief  and  decision  are  wholly  the  acts  of  man,  and  that  this 
is  an  offset  to  sovereign  election. 

True  as  these  statements  are  they  do  not  touch  the 
point  at  issue.  Miles  deeper  down  than  this  lies  the  vital 
point;  viz.  how  does  a  man  become  willing?  If  man  is 

*The  other  half  of  Arminianism’s  proposition  may  be  readily 
granted  as  applied  to  the  reprobate. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


209 


willing  he  can  certainly  choose;  but  the  sinful  nature  a- 
verse  to  God  must  be  made  willing,  by  God’s  word,  by 
God’s  grace,  by  God’s  Spirit,  or  by  sovereign  intervention. 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  God  has  provided  an 
atonement  and  presents  the  alternatives  of  life  and  death, 
and  leaves  it  to  man  to  choose  between  the  two.  As  God 
did  not  create  the  world  and  leave  it  to  its  natural  laws, 
as  Deism  taught,  neither  did  God  make  an  atonement  and 
leave  it  to  the  whim  of  man  to  accept  or  refuse.  In  such 
case  the  sinful  nature  of  man  would  inevitably  determine 
every  man  against  God.  But  God  not  only  made  an  atone¬ 
ment,  but  secures  its  acceptance,  by  the  positive  opera¬ 
tions  of  his  grace  and  Spirit.  The  great  office  of  the  Spirit 
is  to  apply  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ.  And 
Christ  positively  teaches  a  divine  agency  in  the  preliminary 
stages  of  grace  when  he  says,  Jno.  6:44,  “No  man  can 
come  to  me  except  the  Father,  which  sent  me,  draw  him.” 

Therefore  the  element  of  human  decision,  while  it  is 
an  element,  is  not  exercised  apart  from  the  inciting  or  con¬ 
trolling  power  of  God. 

From  this  the  illogical  conclusion  must  not  be  drawn, 
as  it  often  is,  that  the  sinner  is  not  responsible  in  the  mat¬ 
ter  of  salvation.  That  the  sinner  must  be  drawn,  that 
“faith  is  the  gift  of  God,”  reveal  man’s  depravity,  aloof¬ 
ness,  averseness,  disinclination,  rebellion,  not  his  unresponsi¬ 
bility. 

It  is  futile  to  say:  Because  a  man  must  be  drawn  he 
is  not  to  blame  for  not  coming.  The  more  he  needs  to 
be  drawn  the  more  evil  his  nature  is.  His  disinclination, 
to  good  and  averseness  to  God  are  but  the  more  marked. 

Such  is  the  disinclination  of  the  sinful  nature  toward 
God  and  good  that  unless  God  moves  upon  it  in  some  way, 
by  grace,  or  word,  or  providence,  or  Spirit,  it  would  stand 
aloof  forever. 

4.  The  Lutheran  View. 

It  is  difficult  to  present  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  elec¬ 
tion  because  of  contrariety  of  view. 

Luther  was  an  Augustinian  predestinationist. 

Melancthon  was  also  in  his  earlier  years ;  afterwards 
he  inclined  to  synergism.  It  is  said  however:  “Still  later 
Melancthon  declared  for  the  view  that  the  adjutorium  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  required  even  in  order  to  the  will  to 
accept  the  Gospel.”  (Classical  meaning  of  adjuro  is:  to 
adjure,  compel,  solemnly  swear.) 


210 


SOTERIOLOGY 


The  Form  of  Concord,  the  acknowledged  creed  of 
Lutherans,  embraced  the  following  positions: — 

It  denies  the  doctrine  of  absolute  election  but  admits 
that  there  is  an  election,  but  that  nothing  in  us  is  the  cause 
of  election. 

It  teaches  man’s  spiritual  inability, — that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  sole  agent  of  regeneration;  but  that  the  grace 
of  God  may  be  effectually  resisted. 

The  saved  do  not  resist;  and  the  lost  effectually  resist 
the  offered  grace.  These  propositions  seemed  somewhat 
unsatisfactory  to  many  and  led  to  subsequent  diversity  of 
view. 

Man’s  absolute  inability  and  the  Spirit’s  absolute  agen¬ 
cy  in  regeneration  seemed  to  agree  with  predestination. 

And  man’s  ability  to  resist  the  grace  and  power  of 
the  Spirit  seems  out  of  harmony  with  the  omnipotence 
of  that  grace  and  power  in  regeneration.  And  the  non- 
resistance  that  distinguishes  the  saved  is  hardly  consistent 
with  the  view  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  man  regarded 
as  a  cause  of  election.  Besides  the  resister  is  often  saved. 
Grace  overcomes  resistance. 

The  difficulties  of  the  creed  were  bridged  over  by  say¬ 
ing  that  while  fallen  man  has  not  spiritual  ability,  librum 
arbitrium  in  spiritualibus,  as  asserted  by  Semi-Pelagian- 
ism  and  synergism,  yet  he  has  natural  ability,  librum 
arbitrium  in  civilibus;  he  has  his  natural  powers,  can  read 
and  hear  God’s  word,  receive  the  sacraments,  use  means 
of  grace  etc. 

These  have  such  inherent  supernatural  power  as  to 
produce  a  saving  effect  on  all  who  do  not  resist  their  in¬ 
fluence. 

Thus  the  employment  of  natural  powers  afforded  hu¬ 
man  co-operation,  while  divine  grace  was  the  efficacious 
cause  of  salvation.  Still  it  must  be  observed  that  divine 
grace  is  needed  for  the  right  use  of  even  our  natural  powers. 

The  later  Lutheran  theologians  have  abandoned  the 
position  of  the  Form  of  Concord  because  as  they  say:  “it 
ascribes  the  highest  spiritual  efficiency  to  a  power  not 
spiritual  in  nature,  although  through  the  medium  of  the 
means  of  grace.” 

They  teach  that  freedom  of  choice  is  restored  by  the 
power  of  grace  through  using  the  means  of  grace.  This 
freedom  of  choice  restored  has  then  to  decide  for  or  against 


SOTERIOLOGY 


211 


Christianity.  This  abandons  the  view  of  the  Form  of 
Concord  that  in  the  elect  there  is  no  ground  of  their  elec¬ 
tion.  This  leaves  out  of  sight  the  case  of  the  unbaptized 
infant,  incapable,  and  heathen;  whose  salvation,  if  saved 
at  all,  must  rest  on  an  absolute  decree. 

This  view  will  meet  with  further  consideration  under 
the  head  of  Dorner’s  view;  he  being  one  of  the  later 
Lutheran  Theologians. 

5.  Dorner’s  View. 

Man  by  the  fall  came  under  bondage  to  sin.  This 
deprived  him  of  his  freedom  of  will  or  freedom  of  decision. 

By  his  natural  powers  unaided  by  grace  he  cannot  de¬ 
cide  for  Christianity.  The  first  aim  of  grace  therefore  is 
to  restore  freedom  to  the  power  of  making  such  a  de¬ 
cision. 

By  the  knowledge  and  persuasions  of  the  gospel  and 
by  prevenient  workings  of  God’s  Spirit  man  is  restored  to 
his  freedom.  Some  culture  by  Christian  grace  must  pre¬ 
cede  the  decision  for  or  against  Christ.  There  needs  a 
gratia  prseparans  et  prseveniens  in  order  to  give  the  means 
necessary  to  man  for  the  decision.  Man  given  this  freedom 
by  supernatural  grace  is  now  able  to  make  the  decisive 
resolve  of  life. 

“Thus  is  it  possible  to  restore  freedom  in  the  natural 
man  who  lacked  it  in  spiritualibus,  and  thereby  absolute 
predestinationism,  Pelagianism  and  Synergism  are  ex¬ 
cluded.” 

“This  goal  (decision)  is  certainly  and  inevitably  reached 
in  the  case  of  all,  that  they  know  what  they  are  doing  in 
rejecting  Christianity.” 

“The  called  are  all  called  to  salvation  and  as  called  they 
must  come  to  all  in  due  course.” 

Yet  Dorner  feels  that  he  cannot  entirely  dispense  with 
election.  He  concedes  that  election  determines  to  what 
nations  and  individuals  the  gospel  is  sent. 

“The  call  to  salvation  and  power  to  decide  in  its  favor 
are  set  apart  or  elected  to  believe  and  be  saved,”  and  then 
he  adds :  “Rather  according  to  Scripture  there  is  an  election 
in  the  stricter  sense.  Holy  Scripture  teaches  the  eternal 
election  of  believers  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.” 

On  its  face  this  admission  looks  like  strict  Calvinism 
and  if  that  is  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  for  us 
the  final  word. 


212 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Remarks  on  Dorner’s  View. 

In  the  fall  man  did  not  lose  his  free  agency. 

The  unregenerate  man  is  still  a  free  agent,  and  follows 
sin  by  deliberate  choice. 

Whatever  Dorner  means  by  the  loss  of  freedom  it 
cannot  mean  free  agency. 

But  in  the  fall  man  did  lose  his  ability  to  render  obedi¬ 
ence  to  God’s  law,  and  ability  to  retrieve  his  lost  position 
in  God’s  favor.  His  inability  in  this  respect  was  complete. 

Corruption  of  nature  and  bias  to  sin  or  bondage  in 
sin  was  the  direct  result  of  the  fall;  but  man’s  ability  to 
choose,  in  accordance  with  his  own  nature  and  desire,  re¬ 
mained,  and  that  is,  in  theological  terminology,  called  free¬ 
dom  or  liberty. 

Freedom  and  ability  are  not  the  same.  I  have  free¬ 
dom  to  fly  but  not  the  ability. 

Dorner’s  special  point  is  that  prevenient  grace  restores 
to  man  the  freedom  to  decide.  If  that  is  all,  man’s  choice 
of  God  would  be  absolutely  contingent  and  not  certain.  It 
would  still  be  possible  that  all  men  might  decide  wrongly. 
But  freedom  of  decision  is  not  the  vital  point  on  the  human 
side  but  actual  decision.  Does  God  merely  afford  men  free¬ 
dom  of  decision,  or  bring  them  to  actual  decision? 

“It  is  not  ye  that  work,  but  God  that  worketh  in  you 
both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure.” 

If,  as  Dorner  admits,  election  determines  to  what  na¬ 
tions  and  individuals  the  gospel  shall  be  sent,  and  if  as 
he  further  teaches,  prevenient  grace  awakens  the  con¬ 
science  of  the  sinner,  breaks  his  bondage  to  sin,  inclines 
his  desire  Godward,  awakens  longings  for  moral  worth  and 
brings  him  to  the  point  of  decision,  how  near  to,  or  how 
far  is  this  from,  personal  election?  Dorner  says:  “There 
is  no  election  excluding  freedom  of  acceptance  or  rejection 
and  replacing  it  by  an  almighty  volition”  and  “the  power 
to  decide  must  come  to  all  in  due  course.” 

We  reply,  God  is  sovereign  and  may  secure  acceptance 
by  the  fiat  of  regeneration  as  well  as  by  the  persuasion  of 
prevenient  grace. 

Again  infants  and  incapables  cannot  decide;  their  only 
alternative  in  Dorner’s  view,  if  that  point  must  be  reached 
by  all,  is  a  second  probation.  Dorner  does  not  say,  in  loco, 


SOTERIOLOGY 


213 


when  or  where  this  opportunity  comes  to  all,  but  in  his 
eschatology  we  find  the  suspected  sequence  in  the  doctrine 
of  a  second  probation  between  death  and  the  resurrection. 

6.  The  Augustinian  or  Calvinistic  view  teaches  that 
the  ground  of  election  is  found  in  God’s  sovereign  pleasure. 

This  view  is  held  by  the  Presbyterian  bodies,  the  Re¬ 
formed  bodies,  Baptists,  Welsh  Methodists,  and  is  the  view 
taught  in  the  Thirty  Nine  Articles  of  the  Anglican  Church. 

(a)  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

For  a  brief  statement  we  have  Westminster  Shorter 
Catechism,  Question  20:  “Did  God  leave  all  mankind  to 
perish  in  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery?” 

“God  having  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all 
eternity,  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into 
a  covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  out  of  the  estate  of 
sin  and  misery  and  bring  them  into  an  estate  of  salvation 
by  a  redeemer.” 

For  an  extended  statement  of  this  position  see  The 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  III,  together 
with  The  Declaratory  Statement;  and  The  Canons  of  the 
Synod  of  Dort. 

Proof  1,  from  Scripture — 

Ephes.  1:5.  Having  predestinated  us  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  own  will. 

Ephes.  1:11.  Being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of 
him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will. 

II  Tim.  1:9.  Who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us  with  a  holy 
calling,  not  according  to  our  works  but  according  to  his  own  purpose. 

Rom.  9:11.  For  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having 
done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election 
might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth, — it  was  said:  The 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger. 

Rom.  9:15.  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  1  will  have  mercy. 

Rom.  9:21.  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay. 

Rom.  11:5,  6.  A  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace. 
And  if  by  grace,  not  of  works. 

Proof  2,  Repentance,  faith,  and  works  are  the  result 
of  the  decree;  not  the  cause. 

Ephes.  1:4.  Chose  us  that  we  should  be  holy. 

I  Pet.  1:2.  — unto  obedience. 

Phil.  2:13.  It  is  God  who  worketh  in  you,  etc. 

Ephes.  2:8.  Saved  thru  faith  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is 
the  gift  of  God. 

II  Thess.  2:13.  Chosen  you  to  salvation  through  sanctification 
and  belief  of  the  truth. 

Rom.  8:29.  Predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  likeness 
of  his  Son. 

Acts  13:48.  As  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed. 


214 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Observe — That  if  grace  is  the  gift  of  God  it  is  not  the 
cause  of  the  gift.  The  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  is  that 
faith,  etc.  results  from  the  decree  and  not  that  the  decree 
results  from  the  faith. 

Proof  3,  The  Scriptures  speak  of  an  election  by  God. 
If  language  has  any  meaning  this  must  mean  that  God 
chooses  the  individual  unto  salvation.  Any  view  that  sub¬ 
stitutes  for  God’s  choice  a  scheme  that  makes  man  elect 
himself  does  not  measure  up  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  on  this  subject. 

Proof  4,  God’s  choice  involves  all  the  antecedents  of 
man’s  salvation  without  which  man  could  not  exercise  any 
choice  at  all.  No  man  ever  chose  when  and  where  he 
would  be  born,  who  would  become  his  parents,  how  he 
would  be  taught  and  trained,  whether  the  Gospel  was  to 
be  sent  to  Europe  and  America,  or  whether  they  were  to 
remain  heathen,  whether  the  Gospel  should  ever  sound 
in  his  ears  or  he  forever  remain  ignorant  of  its  contents 
and  call. 

All  these  things  that  enter  so  much  into  man’s  salva¬ 
tion  were  chosen  absolutely  and  alone  by  God. 

Proof  5,  If  the  ultimate  and  determining  element  in 
man’s  salvation  rests  in  man  and  not  in  God,  there  would 
be  the  possibility  that  no  man  would  ever  be  saved  and 
Christ  might  have  suffered  and  died  in  vain.  God  not 
only  made  certain  an  atonement  but  made  certain  its  ap¬ 
plication  in  the  saving  of  men. 

Proof  6,  If  infants,  imbeciles,  incapables  and  any 
heathen  are  saved  it  must  be  by  the  direct  and  sovereign 
election  of  God.  If  we  were  called  upon  to  pray  for  a  dy¬ 
ing  man  in  his  last  coma  we  would  do  so  in  the  full  as¬ 
surance  that  it  was  God’s  undoubted  prerogative  to  answer 
our  prayers  and  save  that  man.  And  thankful  would  we 
be  that  it  was  God’s  choice  and  not  man’s  that  determined 
that  man’s  salvation. 

Proof  7,  If  the  initiative  of  salvation  is  with  God,  and 
conviction,  persuasion,  and  enabling  are  the  work  of  God’s 
Spirit,  then  election  is  a  forgone  conclusion. 

Observe, — God’s  sovereign  election  affords  a  larger 
hope  than  any  other  view  of  election  that  we  have  con¬ 
sidered.  If  God  may  sovereignly  elect  whom  he  will,  then 
all  ages,  races,  and  conditions  are  open  to  his  benevolent 
choice.  We  may  therefore  indulge  a  hope  for  many  who 


SOTERIOLOGY 


215 


have  never  heard  the  gospel,  and  for  the  man  at  whose 
bedside  we  pray  though  sunk  into  the  unconsciousness  that 
precedes  death. 

If  the  determining  choice  rests  with  the  perverted, 
rebellious,  depraved  human  will,  how  few  will  be  saved! 
But  if  on  the  will  of  the  God  who  loved,  and  gave,  and 
died  to  save,  then  a  great  multitude  whom  no  man  can  num¬ 
ber. 

There  is  always  larger  hope  in  God  than  in  man.  If 
our  hope  depends  on  man  we  lean  on  a  broken  reed;  if  on 
God  we  lean  on  an  almighty  arm. 

Election  is  not  therefore  a  “horrible  doctrine”  of  nar¬ 
row  limitation;  but  the  ground  of  world-wide  expectation. 
It  is  a  source  of  real  comfort  and  blessed  matter  of  thank¬ 
fulness  as  we  look  on  a  world  ruined  by  sin  and  contemplate 
its  chance  of  salvation. 

(b)  Some  Objections  to  the  Calvinistic  View. 

(i).  It  is  inconsistent  with  free  agency. 

Answer : — 

First,  The  man  that  is  convinced,  convicted  and  per¬ 
suaded  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God  to  confess  his  sins 
and  embrace  the  offered  salvation  is  as  free  as  the  man 
whom  you  persuade  to  take  a  walk  or  to  invest  in  gilt- 
edged  securities.  There  is  no  violation  of  his  free  agency. 
And  it  must  be  remembered  that  God  can  bring  to  bear 
sufficient  inducements  to  incline  any  man. 

Second,  The  man  who  resists  God’s  call  by  word  and 
Spirit  and  providences,  and  whom  God  allows  to  pursue  his 
own  chosen  way  to  destruction  and  perdition,  cannot  com¬ 
plain  that  he  is  not  a  free  agent.  He  has  chosen  his  way 
and  followed  it. 

Third,  If  God  intervenes  over  all  opposition  and  re¬ 
bellion  on  the  part  of  the  man,  and  sovereignly  regenerates 
him,  as  was  seemingly  the  case  with  Saul  of  Tarsus,  at 
the  height  of  his  rebellion,  that  man  is  still  a  free  agent 
in  every  act  of  his  life.  He  was  a  free  agent  in  his  op¬ 
position,  he  is  a  free  agent  in  his  obedience;  and  in  his  re¬ 
generation  he  was  not  an  agent  at  all. 

In  no  case  does  God’s  decree  contravene  free  agency. 
And  it  is  God’s  sovereign  right  to  regenerate  whom  he 
will.  No  extrinsic  power  can  limit  God  nor  deprive  him 
of  his  sovereignty. 


216 


SOTERIOLOGY 


(ii).  It  represents  God  as  partial  in  his  dealings  with 

men. 


Answer : — 

As  a  matter  of  fact  God  does  not  treat  all  men  alike. 
Some  are  born  in  heathen  lands,  some  in  Christian  en¬ 
vironments.  Some  are  born  with  high  endowments,  some 
with  inferior  faculties.  God  chose  Israel  for  his  people, 
left  others  in  ignorance  of  the  true  God.  He  provided 
salvation  for  man,  left  fallen  angels  to  the  doom  of  their 
sin. 

The  parable  of  the  vineyard  laborers  shows  God  to 
be  sovereign  in  the  dispensation  of  his  gifts.  “Shall  I  not 
do  what  I  will  with  my  own? 

(iii) .  It  is  unjust  to  the  non-elect. 

Answer : — 

Strict  justice  would  condemn  all.  God  is  not  under 
obligation  to  save  any.  All  salvation  is  mercy;  all  con¬ 
demnation  is  justice. 

Dr.  Strong  illustrates  thus:  “It  is  not  true  that,  be¬ 
cause  a  governor  pardons  one  convict  from  the  penitentiary, 
he  must  therefore  pardon  all.  When  he  pardons  one  no 
injury  is  done  to  the  rest.” 

(iv) .  It  represents  God  as  acting  arbitrarily  and  with¬ 
out  reason. 

Answer: — 

That  is  asserting  more  than  any  man  knows.  We 
do  not  know  all  God’s  reasons  for  saving  particular  men; 
nor  his  reasons  for  passing  some  by,  except  that  it  is  for 
their  sins. 

“God’s  mere  good  pleasure”  does  not  mean  that  there 
are  no  reasons  in  God’s  mind  why  he  acts  thus  or  so. 

“They  err  who  think  that  of  God’s  will,  there  is  no 
reason  except  his  will.” — Hooker’s  Eccl.  Polity. 

Sovereignty  is  “just  a  name  for  what  is  unrevealed 
in  God” — T.  Erskine. 

(v) .  A  particular  election  is  inconsistent  with  an  of¬ 
fer  to  all. 

Answer: — 

A.  A.  Hodge,  Outlines  pp.  229,  says:  “Nothing  but 


SOTERIOLOGY 


217 


a  sinful  unwillingness  can  prevent  any  one  who  hears  the 
gospel  from  receiving  and  enjoying  it.  The  gospel  is  for 
all,  election  is  a  special  grace  in  addition  to  that  offer. 
The  non-elect  may  come  if  they  will.  The  elect  will  come. 
The  decree  of  election  puts  no  barrier  before  men  prevent¬ 
ing  them  from  accepting  the  gospel  offer.  Any  man,  elect 
or  non-elect,  will  be  saved  if  he  accepts.  The  non-elect  are 
left  to  act  as  they  are  freely  determined  by  their  own 
hearts.” 

Rowland  Hill  was  criticised  for  preaching  election  and 
yet  exhorting  sinners  to  repent,  and  was  told  that  he  should 
preach  only  to  the  elect.  He  replied  that  if  his  critic  would 
put  a  chalk-mark  on  all  the  elect  he  would  preach  only 
to  them. 

God  bids  us  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all;  that  some 
are  not  saved,  is  because  of  their  willful,  sinful  rejection 
of  the  offered  mercy. 

These,  as  the  Westminster  Confession  says,  “God  is 
pleased  to  nass  by  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and 
wrath  FOR"  THEIR  SINS.” 

7.  General  remarks  on  the  doctrine  of  Election. 

There  are  mysteries  in  the  doctrine  of  election  before 
which  we  may  bow  in  humility;  but  as  to  the  FACT  of 
an  election,  the  Scriptures  leave  us  in  no  doubt. 

We  are  however,  moving  in  the  region  of  mystery. 
The  motives  and  purposes  that  lie  in  the  divine  mind  are 
beyond  our  apprehension,  and  above  our  comprehension. 
For  this  reason  it  ill  becomes  any  one  to  adjudge  God’s 
actions  arbitrary. 

How  the  divine  mind  acts  on  the  human  mind  is,  in 
its  deeper  reaches,  inscrutable.  How  God  affects  us  below 
the  sphere  of  our  consciousness  is  not  open  to  observa¬ 
tion.  We  do  not  understand  how  the  immanent  God  inter¬ 
penetrates  the  physical  universe  and  upholds  it  by  the 
word  of  his  power;  or  how  that  immanence,  in  substance 
and  power,  relates  itself  to  the  human  mind,  and  becomes 
effective  in  action  or  restraint. 

But  we  are  to  remember,  in  all  discussions  of  election, 
that  we  are  dealing  with  a  Being  who  is  infinitely  kind 
and  good,  and  as  equally  sovereign  and  just.  And  further, 
to  remember  that  God  is  dealing  with  beings  who  are  not 
innocent  and  deserving,  but  sinful  and  rebellious. 


218 


SOTERIOLOGY 


The  doctrine  of  election  is  evidently  designed  to  show, 
in  its  practical  import,  that  the  whole  of  man’s  salvation 
is  due  to  God’s  mercy  and  grace,  and  no  part  of  it  to  man’s 
merit,  wisdom,  or  virtue.  Let  this  not  be  forgotten. 

The  chief  difficulty  in  the  doctrine  of  election  lies  on 
the  side  of  the  unsaved,  about  whose  apostasy,  and  about 
the  philosophy  of  it,  the  Scriptures  have  not  given  extended 
explanation.  We  may,  however,  presume  to  say  that  God 
gives  to  all  normal  men  some  light,  some  knowledge,  some 
operation  of  his  Spirit.  This  is  called  common  grace. 

If  men  are  not  saved  it  is  because  of  their  sinfulness 
and  resistance  of  God’s  grace.  It  is  proper  to  say  that 
if  men  did  not  resist,  God’s  grace  would  save  every  man. 
Man  may  so  resist  that  God  may  give  him  up  to  his  own 
way,  and  he  reaps  the  doom  he  has  chosen.  After  God 
has  done  all  and  more  for  the  sinner  than  he  deserves, 
he  may  leave  him  to  his  own  sinful  choice. 

But  in  all  circumstances  God  is  sovereign  and  almighty. 
He  never  surrenders  his  sovereignty.  He  may,  if  he 
chooses,  step  over  all  man’s  resistance,  and  regenerate  the 
man  even  at  the  height  of  his  rebellion.  One  man  ef¬ 
fectually  resists  the  grace  of  God  and  another  does  not; 
but  the  effectual  resistance  is  not  due  to  any  limit  of  God’s 
power.  Judas  and  Saul  both  resisted;  and  Judas  was  al¬ 
lowed  to  “go  to  his  own  place,”  while  Saul  was  made  a 
“chosen  vessel.” 

The  ground  of  the  elective  decree  means  the  reason  that 
determines  the  decree  to  be  what  it  is.  Sometimes  the 
word  “ground”  is  used  to  express  the  consideration  for 
which  a  thing  is  done;  as  in  Justification.  Sometimes  it 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  determining  cause  or  reason. 

It  must  be  kept  in  mind  in  all  this  discussion  that 
the  elective  decree  is  a  positive  decree;  while  so  far  as 
the  reprobate  is  concerned  it  is  only  a  permissive  decree. 
A  man  is  elected  to  be  saved;  he  is  not  elected  to  be  lost, 
except  as  God  chooses  to  permit  him  to  follow  his  chosen 
way.  When,  therefore,  we  ask  for  the  ground  of  election, 
that  is  to  say,  why  a  man  is  saved,  or  what  determines 
God  to  save  that  man,  the  Arminian  answers:  Forseen 
faith  and  works.  The  Calvinist  answers :  God’s  love,  mercy, 
grace  and  goodness  exercised  toward  the  man ;  denominated 
in  the  Catechism  “mere  good  pleasure,”  or  generally 
“sovereign  pleasure.”  In  the  case  of  the  lost,  the  love, 


SOTERIOLOGY 


219 


mercy,  grace,  goodness  and  Spirit  of  God  would  incline 
him  to  salvation,  did  he  not  resist  and  rebel. 

In  the  case  of  Saul,  and  probably  6f  most  of  us,  God 
overcame  the  resistance  and  rebellion  by  the  persuasions 
of  his  word,  or  providence,  or  Spirit;  or  perhaps  by  im¬ 
mediate  regeneration.  In  the  case  of  Judas  and  Dives, 
if  he  were  real,  God  did  not  overcome  their  resistance, 
but  left  them  to  their  own  determined  choice. 

When  we  ask  why  did  God  not  overcome  the  resist¬ 
ance  of  Judas,  Dives  and  others,  as  he  did  that  of  Saul? 
Why  did  he  not  exert  his  omnipotence  and  sovereignty? 
Why  did  he  permit  them  to  have  their  own  way?  We 
cannot  answer;  that  is  a  secret  in  the  mind  of  God  which 
He  has  not  chosen  to  reveal. 

The  fact  remains  a  fact  in  all  systems  except  uni- 
versalism;  and  Arminianism  has  no  more  of  an  answer 
to  the  question  than  Calvinism. 

If  it  be  asked,  is  it  God’s  pleasure  in  regard  to  some 
“to  pass  them  by  and  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath 
for  their  sin” — is  God  pleased  with  the  fate  of  the  wicked? 
The  answer  is,  God  hath  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked;  he  takes  no  delight  in  sin  nor  in  its  consequences; 
but  it  seems  good  to  him,  or  wise,  or  best,  to  govern  this 
world  by  moral  laws,  in  which  righteousness  is  rewarded 
and  sin  is  punished.  That  is  the  basis  on  which  God’s 
government  is  constructed.  Into  this  mold  the  universe 
has  been  cast.  It  may  therefore  be  said  that  it  pleased 
God  to  act  according  to  the  plan  on  which  the  universe 
was  projected. 

When  the  Arminian  says  that  foreseen  faith  and  works 
constitute  the  ground  of  election  we  dissent.  But  if  he 
says  that  foreseen  unbelief  and  disobedience  constitute  the 
ground  of  reprobation  we  assent  readily  enough. 

A  man  is  not  saved  on  the  ground  of  his  virtues  but 
he  is  condemned  on  the  ground  of  his  sin.  As  high 
Calvinists  we  insist  that  while  some  men  are  saved  from 
their  unbelief  and  disobedience,  in  which  all  are  involved, 
and  others  are  not,  it  is  still  the  sinner’s  sinfulness  that 
constitutes  the  ground  of  his  reprobation.  Election  and 
reprobation  proceed  on  different  grounds;  one  the  grace 
of  God,  the  other  the  sin  of  man.  It  is  a  travesty  on 
Calvinism  to  say  that  because  God  elects  to  save  a  man 


220 


SOTERIOLOGY 


irrespective  of  his  character  or  deserts,  that  therefore  he 
elects  to  damn  a  man  irrespective  of  his  character  or 
deserts. 


8.  Summary  of  the  Reformed  Position  -on  Election. 

(a)  Election  is  by  God,  from  eternity. 

(b)  The  elective  decree  contemplates  the  race  as  al¬ 
ready  fallen. 

(c)  Election  is  from  a  state  of  sin  and  misery  unto 
salvation. 

(d)  Election  is  personal,  that  is,  terminates  on  the 
individual. 

(e)  It  includes  both  means  and  end,  is  both  general 
and  particular. 

(f)  Election  is  consummated  by  the  efficient  grace 
of  God. 

(g)  Men  are  brought  into  a  state  of  grace  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  working  when,  and  where,  and  how,  and  on 
whom  he  pleases;  by  means  or  without  means;  by  appeal 
to  the  mind  and  heart,  or  by  immediate  sovereign  regener¬ 
ation;  constraining  by  persuasion,  or  by  conferring  a  new 
nature. 

00  God’s  grace  and  Spirit  would  incline  all  men  to 
good  if  not  resisted. 

(i)  Men  are  lost  because  of  their  sinfulness  and  re¬ 
sistance  of  God’s  grace;  not  because  they  have  no  chance, 
but  because  they  reject  the  grace  and  help  proffered. 

(j)  God  may  permit  men  to  follow  the  evil  they 
have  chosen,  to  their  own  destruction. 

(k)  God,  in  his  sovereignty,  could  regenerate  the 
apostate. 

(l)  Why  he  does  not,  why  he  permits  him  to  follow 
his  own  way,  we  do  not  know. 

(m)  Permission  is  classified  in  theology  as  a  decree. 

(n)  The  judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right,  and 
bestow  mercy  even  where  it  is  not  deserved. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


221 


(o)  When  the  Westminster  Confession  speaks  of  God 
electing  men  “without  anything  in  the  creature,  as  con¬ 
ditions,  or  causes  moving  him  thereunto,”  the  converse 
must  not  be  assumed,  that  there  is  nothing  in  reprobate 
men  that  stands  as  a  condition,  or  cause,  of  their  condem¬ 
nation.  It  is  distinctly  stated  that  they  are  ordained  “to 
dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin.” 


Chapter  III.  The  Historical  Antecedents  of  Redemption. 

Before  the  covenant  of  redemption  came  into  objec¬ 
tive  realization  long  ages  of  preparation  came  and  passed. 
If  our  first  parents  expected  the  Redeemer  in  their  im¬ 
mediate  offspring  it  was  not  to  be.  If  the  uncertain  Gen. 
4:1  expresses  such  a  hope,  it  was  doomed  to  disappointment. 
Paul  declares,  Gal.  4:4,  “When  the  fulness  of  time  was 
come  God  sent  forth  his  Son.” 

Among  the  developments  of  the  preparation  we  may 
mention : — 


Section  I.  The  typology  of  rite  and  ceremony,  of  per¬ 
son  and  history. 

A  type  is  a  prefiguration  of  spiritual  things  in  visible 

form.  And  the  race  had  long  education  for  the  fact  of 
redemption  in  the  school  of  typology. 

In  Rom.  5:4,  Paul  makes  the  first  Adam  the  type 
of  the  second  Adam.  The  rite  of  sacrifice  and  the  meaning 
of  the  shed  blood  in  this  religious  tutelage  dates  back  to 
the  gates  of  Eden. 

The  Lord  made  them  coats  of  skins;  presumably  from 
animals  sacrificed.  Abel  brought  the  firstlings  of  his  flock. 
Even  in  Abel’s  day,  sacrifice  was  the  customary  thing, 
and  the  proper  and  improper  means  and  methods  already 
distinguished. 

The  trial  of  Abraham’s  faith  in  Gen.  22  illustrates  the 
surrender  of  a  beloved  son,  the  submission  of  that  son, 
and  the  fact  of  vicarious  deliverance;  and  Christ,  in  Jno. 
8:56,  remarks,  “Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  he  saw 
it  and  was  glad.” 


222 


SOTERIOLOGY 


In  Jno.  3:14  Christ  represents  the  brazen  serpent  as 
a  type  of  the  crucifixion. 

In  Matt.  12:40  Jonah  is  the  type  of  Christ's  burial. 

I  Cor.  10:11.  Now  all  these  things  happened  unto  them  as 
types,  and  they  are  written  for  our  admonition. 

The  rites  in  regard  to  the  sin-offering,  the  rites  on 
the  great  day  of  atonement,  and  the  Passover  observances 
were  all  rich  in  typology.  Besides,  some  individual  experi¬ 
ences,  particularly  of  the  patriarchs,  and  some  facts  of 
national  history  entered  into  the  typological  education  and 
preparation  for  the  great  fact  of  redemption. 


Section  II.  Prophecy. 

Prophecy  is  prefiguration  in  words,  as  type  is  pre¬ 
figuration  in  facts.  Special  reference  to  the  prophecies  con¬ 
cerning  the  coming  of  Christ  is  made  in  Capter  IV,  Section 
I,  paragraph  1. 

From  the  first  promise,  ‘The  seed  of  the  woman  shall 
bruise  the  serpent’s  head,”  till  the  announcement  of  John, 
“There  cometh  one  after  me,”  the  whole  scope  of  predictive 
prophecy  is  educative  and  preparatory. 

Thus  the  world  was  growing  in  knowledge  and  ex¬ 
pectation  through  the  centuries;  and  by  the  history  and 
prophecy  of  Israel  the  Hebrew  religion  became  possessed 
of  a  most  lively  hope  of  speedy  consummation. 


Section  III.  The  Heathen  Religions. 

What  part  did  the  heathen  religions  play,  if  any,  in 
the  world’s  preparation?  That  there  were  some  elements 
of  truth  in  them  we  may  readily  admit.  That  they  reflect¬ 
ed  some  light  of  a  primitive  revelation  need  not  be  denied. 
That  they  were,  however,  most  of  all,  the  mighty  efforts 
of  the  human  spirit  to  answer  its  own  questions  and  solve 
its  own  problems  is  the  best  solution  to  be  given  them. 

Every  smoking  altar,  every  bleeding  victim,  every  as¬ 
cetic  privation,  every  priestly  intervention  was  a  testimony 
to  the  guilt  of  sin  and  the  need  of  remission.  The  whole 
mighty  fabric  of  heathen  religion,  in  all  its  variety,  awful¬ 
ness,  and  degradation  was  an  age-long  revelation  of  the  need 
of  a  Saviour  and  salvation.  And  the  hoplessness  and  in¬ 
effectiveness  of  it  only  enhanced  the  testimony. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


223 


Man  was  learning  the  bitter  lesson  of  apostasy  from 
God.  And  the  utter  failure  of  all  human  plans  and  efforts 
to  regenerate  the  human  race  showed  clearly  the  helpless¬ 
ness  of  man  without  God  and  his  revelation. 

The  heathenism  of  the  world  was  thus  over-ruled  by 
God  to  make  preparation  for  the  coming  Redeemer.  And 
when  the  fulness  of  time  came,  the  Gentiles,  from  their 
experiences  of  failure  and  defeat,  showed  as  much  receptive¬ 
ness  for  Christianity  as  the  people  of  Israel,  if  not  more. 


Section  IV.  The  conclusions  of  human  speculation  and 
philosophy. 

It  is  both  interesting  and  instructive  to  observe  how 
pagan  speculation  approaches  Jewish  and  Christian  thought. 

(a)  Socrates,  469 — 399  B.  C. 

According  to  Socrates  man’s  chief  end  is  happiness; 
but  such  happiness  as  is  to  be  found  in  well  doing  and 
obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  and  with  the  blessing  of 
heaven.  Socrates  attributes  to  knowledge  what  the  book 
of  Proverbs  does  to  wisdom.  Ignorance  is  sin;  knowledge 
is  virtue;  but  these  terms  are  used  in  an  ethical  sense, 
assuming  that  a  man  is  as  he  thinks.  Socrates  believed 
in  one  supreme  God,  creator  and  ruler  of  the  universe, 
omnipotent,  omniscient,  omnipresent,  wise,  just  and  good. 

Socrates  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  in 
providence,  prayer,  and  the  reflex  or  self-retributive  nature 
of  sin. 

(b)  Plato,  427—347  B.  C. 

Plato’s  idea  of  God  was  very  similar  to  the  Christian 

idea. 

What  he  had  assimilated  from  Jewish  literature  and 
thought  is  uncertain;  but  many  of  the  early  Christian 
fathers  recognized  in  his  system  a  considerable  element 
of  Christian  thought,  and  looked  upon  him  as  sustaining 
a  sort  of  propaedeutic  relation  to  the  Christian  dispensa¬ 
tion. 

His  definition  of  God  reminds  us  of  the  Westminster 
Shorter  Catechism,  and  is  as  follows:  “God  is  the  begin¬ 
ning,  middle,  and  end  of  all  things.  He  is  the  supreme 
mind  or  reason,  the  efficient  cause  of  all  things,  eternal, 


224 


SOTERIOLOGY 


unchangeable,  all-knowing,  all-powerful,  all-pervading,  all¬ 
controlling,  just,  holy,  wise,  and  good;  the  absolutely  per¬ 
fect,  the  beginning  of  all  truth,  the  fountain  of  all  law  and 
justice,  the  source  of  all  order  and  beauty,  and  especially 
the  cause  of  all  good.” 

Plato  held  to  the  existence  of  subordinate  gods;  but 
these  were  the  children  and  ministers  of  the  one  Supreme. 
As  for  Atheism,  he  held  that  to  be  a  disease.  Plato  also 
believed  in  divine  government,  immortality,  future  rewards, 
and  punishments  and  much  that  approached  Christian 
thought. 

It  would  seem  that  Plato  realized  the  need  of  human 
redemption  to  save  the  individual  and  to  perfect  the  race; 
and  consequently  the  need  of  a  divine  teacher  and  revealer 
to  bring  in  a  better  than  any  existing  society  or  govern¬ 
ment. 

But  this  is  what  Plato’s  system  could  not  supply.  It 
furnished  no  Saviour,  no  atonement,  no  regenerating  agen¬ 
cy,  no  justification  by  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by 
faith.  Besides  it  is  full  of  many  errors  amid  its  excellence. 
His  proposal  to  better  man  by  education,  laws,  government, 
community  of  goods  and  wives,  mortification  of  the  body 
(Manichseism),  transmigration  of  souls,  etc.  falls  short  of 
the  gospel  which  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  all 
who  believe. 

Thus  the  loftiest  efforts  of  human  philosophy  are  but 
the  groping  and  feeling  of  men  after  God  if  haply  they 
may  find  him.  And  yet,  as  the  Apostle  said,  “The  world 
by  wisdom  knew  not  God,” — knew  indeed  something  of 
him  and  about  him,  but  still  far  short  of  the  experience 
of  the  Apostle  who  could  say,  “I  know  whom  I  have  be¬ 
lieved.” 

(c)  Philo,  20  B.  C. — 42  A.  D. 

Philo  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  and  he  presents  an 
example  of  Jewish  speculation  more  organically  antecedent 
to  Christianity  than  pagan  philosophy.  Among  other  sub¬ 
jects  Philo  wrote  largely  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Pentateuch. 
This  puts  him  in  direct  line  as  antecedent  to  Christian  doc¬ 
trine.  What  interests  us  most  in  this  connection  is  his 
doctrine  of  the  Logos.  Between  God  and  the  finite  im¬ 
perfect  universe  is  a  world  of  intermediate  beings.  At  the 
head  of  all  the  graded  intermediates  is  the  divine  Logos. 
The  intermediaries  proceed  from  the  Logos;  but  the  Logos 


SOTERIOLOGY 


225 


proceeds  from  God.  Through  him  the  world  was  made  and 
through  him  God  holds  together,  supports  and  directs  all 
things.  How  much  this  reminds  us  of  Jno.  1:3,  and  Col. 
1 — 16,  17.  The  Logos  doctrine  of  Philo  has  been  called: 
“The  Jewish  prologue  of  Christianity.”  The  approaches 
to  Christian  doctrine  on  the  part  of  Jewish  and  pagan  specu¬ 
lation  are  in  no  wise  derogatory  to  Christianity  as  a  unique 
and  supernatural  system.  They  are  rather  confirmatory 
of  its  truth.  We  gladly  recognize  the  fact  that  “the  light 
that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world”  has 
enabled  the  pagan  seeker  after  truth  to  discover  the  being 
of  God  and  the  nature  and  destiny  of  man,  “for  the  invisible 
things  of  him  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even 
his  eternal  power  and  Godhead.”  Thus  the  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  religion  are  justified  at  the  bar  of  the  highest 
intellectualism. 

And  we  are  profoundly  thankful  that  the  learned  Jew, 
browsing  among  the  facts  of  the  Old  Testament,  came  so 
near  discovering,  and  vindicating  by  that  almost  discovery, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  trinity,  which  the  modern  Jew 
denies.  Slight  wonder,  indeed,  if  the  roots  of  Christian 
Trinitarianism  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that 
the  enemies  of  the  doctrine  so  nearly  stumble  upon  the  fact. 

Every  approach  to  Christian  truth  on  the  part  of  non- 
Christian  systems  only  vindicates  the  rationality  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  prepares  the  way  of  the  Lord.  And  when  these 
groping  hearts  and  minds  come  back  to  the  true  religion 
they  find  in  it  the  truth  they  sought. 


Section  V.  The  Awakening  of  Universal  Expectation. 

It  has  been  frequently  conceded  that,  as  the  fulness 
of  time  drew  near,  there  was  a  general  expectation  through¬ 
out  the  heathen  world  that  some  one  was  about  to  come 
with  new  light  on  the  problems,  and  new  help  for  the  ills 
of  the  human  race. 

This  expectation  grew  out  of  several  considerations: 

(a)  The  exceeding  degradation  of  human  society 
which  alarmed  men  as  to  the  extent  and  result  of  it. 

(b)  The  failure  of  the  heathen  religions  to  cure  the 
ills  of  the  world. 


226 


SOTERIOLOCY 

(c)  The  fact  that  in  some  instances  religious  systems 
descended  from  corruption  to  perversion,  e.  g.  fetishism 
was  a  low  descent  that  amounted  to  perversion  of  religious 
ideas  and  practices.  The  nature  worship  too  might  be  in¬ 
cluded  in  this  class,  where  religion  was  associated  with  the 
vilest  immorality. 

(d)  The  unanswered  longings  and  aspirations  of  the 
human  heart  and  mind;  and  the  natural  desire  for  clearer 
light  on  the  whence  and  why  and  whither  of  human  ex¬ 
istence. 

This  incurable  longing  is  expressed  in  the  words  put 
into  the  mouth  of  the  dying  Greek: — “Shall  we  meet  a- 
gain?”  “I  have  asked  that  question  of  the  hills  that  look 
eternal;  of  the  clear  streams  that  flow  on  forever;  of  the 
blue  sky  in  whose  azure  dome  my  raised  spirit  has  walked 
in  glory.  All  are  dumb.  But  as  I  look  upon  thy  living 
face,  and  see  the  love  that  mantles  in  its  blush,  I  know 
that  we  shall  meet  again,  Clemanthe.” 

The  longing  for  immortality  and  eternal  fellowship  is 
irrepressible,  and  imperishable ;  and  every  serious  mind  cries 
out  for  reasonable  certainty.  In  this  respect  Christ  is  well 
described  as  “the  desire  of  the  nations.”  The  doctrines 
of  Christianity  are  too  good  not  to  be  true ;  and  they  answer 
the  cry  of  the  universal  human  heart.  The  world  hoped 
for  some  answer  to  the  universal  need  and  did  not  hope  in 
vain. 


Section  VI.  A  Growing  Revelation. 

This  was  another  element  of  the  pre-Christian  prepara¬ 
tion,  embracing,  among  others,  the  following  points : 

(a)  Growth  of  the  doctrine  of  God. 

(b)  Growth  of  the  knowledge  of  sin  and  its  need  of 
remission. 

(c)  Growth  in  the  forms  and  literature  of  devotion. 

(d)  Growth  of  the  Messianic  idea  and  hope. 

(e)  Growth  of  the  doctrines  of  a  future  life. 

Section  VII.  National  Specialties. 

(a)  The  Jews  developed  religious  ideas  and  expec¬ 
tations. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


227 


(b)  The  Greeks  developed  language  and  dialectics. 

(c)  The  Romans  developed  law  and  inter-racial  inter¬ 
course.  The  latter  was  specially  promoted  by  commerce 
and  good  roads. 


Chapter  IV.  The  Redeemer. 


Section  I.  The  Incarnation. 

Catechism  21.  Who  is  the  Redeemer  of  God's  elect? 
The  only  Redeemer  of  God’s  elect  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  being  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  became  man,  and  so  was, 
and  continueth  to  be,  God  and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures, 
and  one  person  forever. 

Catechism  22.  How  did  Christ,  being  the  Son  of  God, 
become  man?  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  became  man,  by  tak¬ 
ing  to  himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  being  con¬ 
ceived  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  womb  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  born  of  her,  yet  without  sin. 

1.  Christ  is  the  Messiah  which  was  to  come. 

The  seed  of  the  woman;  (but  not  of  the  man.)  Ful¬ 
filled  in  the  virgin  birth. 

Abraham’s  seed.  Gen.  22:18. 

Of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Gen.  49:19.  Shiloh. 

A  prophet  like  unto  Moses.  Deut.  18:15. 

The  son  of  David.  Isa.  11:1,  Jer.  28:5. 

The  time  of  his  appearance;  while  2nd  temple  stood, 
Hag.  2:9,  Mai.  8:1. 

Also  at  the  end  of  the  seventy  weeks,  Dan.  9:25.* 

Place — Bethlehem.  Micah  5:2. 


*Refer  to  Dan.  9:24 — 27.  Command  to  build  and  restore  Jerusa¬ 
lem  dated  457  B.  C.  See  Ezra  7:6 — 8. 

70  weeks  or  heptads  till  Messiah  equals  70x7  equals  490  years. 
It  works  out  as  follows: — 

457  years  from  Ezra’s  mission  to  1  A.  D. 

26  years  till  Christ’s  ministry. 

Sy2  years  duration  of  ministry. 

SJ/2  years  the  cut-off  half  of  the  last  heptad. 

“In  the  half  of  the  week  sacrifice  to  cease.” 


490  years  equals  70x7. 


228 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Preceded  by  a  forerunner.  Isa.  40:3,  Mai.  3:1. 

Declared  to  be  God,  Isa.  9:6.  Isa.  7:14.  Immanuel. 

Nature  of  his  ministry,  Isa.  61:1 — 3,  Lk.  4:18 — 21. 

His  crucifixion,  Ps.  22. 

His  vicarious  sacrifice,  Isa.  53. 

All  these  features  of  prophecy  are  fulfilled  in  Jesus 
Christ  and  cannot  apply  to  any  other,  showing  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Messiah  foretold.  No  one  can  yet  arise  to 
combine  this  prophecy  in  himself  for  the  records  are  lost 
to  prove  his  claim. 

2.  Christ’s  Pre-existence  is  involved  in  his  incarnation. 

Jno.  1:1.  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God. 

Jno.  8:38.  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father. 

Jno.  8:42.  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God. 

Jno.  8:58.  Before  Abraham  was  I  am. 

Phil.  2:6.  Being  in  the  form  of  God,  etc. 

The  Arians  believed  in  Christ’s  pre-existence;  but  not 
in  his  Deity,  holding  that  he  was  a  created  being  lower 
than  God,  higher  than  man. 

3.  The  incarnation  involves  Christ’s  humiliation. 

Catechism  27.  Wherein  did  Christ’s  humiliation  con¬ 
sist?  Christ’s  humiliation  consisted  in  his  being  born,  and 
that  in  a  low  condition,  made  under  the  law,  undergoing  the 
miseries  of  this  life,  the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  cursed 
death  of  the  cross;  in  being  buried,  and  continuing  under 
the  power  of  death  for  a  time. 

Phil.  2:6,  7,  8.  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God.  But  made  himself  of  no  reputation, 
and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men.  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled 
himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross. 

4.  The  Virgin  Birth. 

(a)  The  faith  of  the  church. 

The  earliest  Roman  creed  is  the  Apostles  Creed,  dating 
100—150. 

The  Apostles  Creed  says : — conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  For  1500  years  this  was 
the  almost  undisputed  tradition  of  the  church. 

(b)  Denials. 

Tom  Paine  in  the  Age  of  Reason  attacked  the  doc¬ 
trine. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


229 


Voltaire  and  the  Deists  did  the  same. 

The  rationalistic  schools  also  ranged  themselves  against 
the  Virgin  Birth.  Schleiermacher  the  Pantheistic  mystic, 
father  of  the  subjective  schools,  followed  by  the  modern 
New  Theology  and  the  Unitarians. 

In  1892  Prof.  Wustenburg  (German)  declined  to  as¬ 
sent  to  the  Creed  because  it  contained  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth,  and  since  then  Germany,  Britain  and  America 
have  been  stirred  by  discussion. 

Evolution  was  supposed  to  eliminate  the  supernatural 
from  the  physical  world.  (Of  course  not  so.)  The  ten¬ 
dency  was  then  to  go  on  and  eliminate  all  the  supernatural 
from  the  Scriptures  and  religious  belief. 

Evolutionary  schools  are  therefore  antagonistic  to  the 
Virgin  Birth. 

Wellhausen  issued  editions  of  the  gospels  in  which  he 
omits  Matt.  1:2,  and  Lk.  1:2.  If  we  cut  and  slash  as  we 
please  we  can  eliminate  anything,  but  that  is  sheer  piracy. 

All  the  unmutilated  MSS  and  versions  have  these  chap¬ 
ters  and  it  is  contrary  to  all  manuscript  authority  to  cut 
them  out. 

Harnack  has  a  great  reputation  as  a  scholar.  Holds 
to  the  genuineness  of  Luke.  Good  thus  far.  But  Harnack 
acts  the  part  of  the  censor  on  the  chapter  of  the  birth  and 
deletes  its  plain  words. 

He  cuts  out  Lk.  1 :27,  in  which  Mary  is  twice  called  a 
virgin. 

He  cuts  out  Lk.  1:84,  Mary’s  question:  How  shall  this 

be? 

He  cuts  out  Lk.  1:35,  The  angel’s  answer  to  Mary. 

Then  fitting  the  parts  together  he  has  a  story  with 
the  supernatural  left  out.  But  this  is  arbitrary  and  un¬ 
warranted. 

There  might  be  an  excuse  for  such  a  process  if  these 
verses  were  omitted  from  the  majority  of  the  best  MSS, 
but  the  MSS  are  against  him. 

Even  when  this  is  done  Matthew’s  account  remains  and 
it  is  not  easy  to  make  a  consistent  story  out  of  Matthew 
and  leave  out  the  supernatural. 

(c)  The  grounds  of  the  denial. 

Anti-supernaturalism  repudiates  all  miracle. 


230 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Subjective  speculation  substituted  for  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures. 

It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  was  no  part  of  the  teaching 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  We  do  not  know  all  that  they 
preached  and  taught.  The  question  is  settled  by  the  re¬ 
cords.  If  they  didn’t  preach  anything  about  it,  it  still 
stands  on  the  testimony  of  the  written  gospels. 

It  is  said  that  Mark  and  John  do  not  mention  it. 

Mark  does  not  treat  of  the  boyhood  of  Christ.  Begins 
with  public  ministry.  John  deals  with  the  Deity  of  Christ 
not  with  his  humanity.  Had  before  him  the  works  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  and  did  not  need  to  repeat. 

It  is  said  that  Paul  does  not  preach  it  and  therefore 
not  true. 

Silence  is  no  argument. 

Paul  does  say: — “born  of  a  woman.” 

Paul  does  say: — “mystery  of  godliness.  Christ  born 
in  the  flesh.” 

Paul  does  say: — “He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God, 
took  on  him  form  of  a  servant.  Thus  Paul  teaches  the 
incarnation,  and  “born  of  a  woman”  may  refer  to  the  fact 
of  the  virgin  birth. 

It  is  curious  about  these  critics  as  follows: 

What  Paul  DOES  say  they  don’t  believe,  but  what  he 
does  NOT  say  they  believe  with  all  their  hearts. 

What  Paul  does  say  has  no  force;  but  what  he  does 
not  say  is  proof  positive. 

(d)  Proof  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

The  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark. 

These  books  are  the  genuine  writings  of  the  men  whose 
names  they  bear.  And  the  first  and  second  chapters  are 
integral  portions  of  the  books.  All  manuscript  evidence 
shows  this. 

Matthew’s  account  is  written  from  the  standpoint  of 
Joseph.  Shows  all  Joseph’s  scruples  and  questioning  and 
fears,  and  how  these  were  met. 

Luke’s  account  is  from  the  standpoint  of  Mary,  and 
shows  her  questionings,  and  astonishment,  and  wonder, 
and  visit  to  Elizabeth,  etc. 

We  naturally  inquire  whence  this  information  came. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


231 


And  there  were  only  two  persons  in  all  the  world  who 
could  supply  it  and  these  were  Joseph  and  Mary. 

Here  then  we  have  in  Matthew  the  story  as  it  came 
from  Joseph’s  side  of  the  house,  and  in  Luke  the  story  as 
it  came  from  Mary’s  side  of  the  house. 

In  Matt.  1:16  we  have:  “Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary 
OF  WHOM  was  born  Jesus.  Which  person  is  the  anteced¬ 
ent  of  whom?  Answer,  Mary,  and  not  Joseph.  How  do 
we  know?  By  the  pronoun  in  the  original,  which  is  not 
masculine,  and  therefore  does  not  refer  to  Joseph;  not 
plural  and  therefore  does  not  refer  to  both  of  them  in 
common;  but  is  feminine,  and  refers  to  Mary. 

An  old  Syriac  MS  has  “Joseph  begat  Jesus.” 

Referred  to  by  a  Unitarian  in  the  North  American 
and  answered  by  Prof.  Machen.  Doubtless  this  is  just  the 
mistake  of  a  copyist  who  had  written  the  word  so  many 
times  in  the  chapter  that  he  wrote  it  once  too  often. 

This  one  MS  would  have  little  weight  against  the  united 
testimony  of  scores  of  other  MSS  and  versions. 

But  the  absolutely  crushing  reply  is  this,  that  that 
very  same  old  Syriac  manuscript  in  that  very  chapter  gives 
an  account  of  the  virgin  birth  just  as  we  have  it  in  our 
texts. 

The  loss  of  the  Virgin  Birth  would  not  necessarily 
destroy  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  deity.  That  is  abundantly 
proved  in  other  places. 

The  virgin  birth  fits  all  that  we  know  of  Christ  in  all 
his  character  and  ministry,  and  is  a  fitting  beginning  of 
such  a  life. 

We  will  not  therefore  tear  it  from  our  Bibles  or  ex¬ 
punge  it  from  our  creeds,  but  keep  on  repeating:  I  believe 
in  Jesus  Christ,  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of 
the  virgin  Mary. 

5.  The  Incarnation  involves  also  Christ’s  Exaltation. 

The  statement  of  the  doctrine  is  found  in  the  Catechism 
Question  28. 

This  doctrine  involves  the  following  points: 

(a)  His  Resurrection. 

(b)  His  Ascension. 

(c)  His  Session  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

(d)  His  coming  to  judge  the  world  at  the  last  day. 


232 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Section  II.  The  Person  of  Christ. 


1.  Statement  of  the  doctrine. 

Shorter  Catechism  22,  How  did  Christ,  being  the  Son 
of  God,  become  man? 

Christ  the  Son  of  God  became  man  by  taking  to  him¬ 
self  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul;  being  conceived  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin 
Mary  and  born  of  her  yet  without  sin. 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  8,  Section  2.  The  second 
person  in  the  Trinity,  being  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one 
substance  and  equal  with  the  Father,  did — take  upon  him 
man’s  nature,  with  all  the  essential  properties  and  common 
infirmities  thereof;  yet  without  sin.  So  that  two  whole 
and  distinct  natures,  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood  were 
inseparably  joined  together,  in  one  person,  without  con¬ 
version,  composition,  or  confusion.  Which  person  is  very 
God  and  very  man,  yet  one  Christ  the  only  mediator. 

2.  Christ’s  Deity. 

He  was  God;  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  Proved 
by: 


(a)  Christ’s  claims. 

Matt.  16:17.  Accepts  Peter’s  declaration. 

Matt.  26:64.  At  his  trial  declared  himself  the  Son  of  God,  and 
condemned. 

Jno.  8:38.  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father. 

Jno.  8:42.  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God. 

Jno.  10:38.  I  and  my  Father  are  one. 

Jno.  14:9.  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father. 

Jno.  14:10.  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me. 

(b)  The  teachings  of  the  Apostles. 

Matt.  1:23.  Called  Immanuel. 

Matt.  16:16.  Peter  declares:  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God. 

Mk.  1:1.  The  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

Lk.  1:35.  The  one  that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God. 

Jno.  1:1.  The  Word  was  God. 

Jno.  1:14.  The  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us. 

Jno.  20:31.  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing,  ye  might  have 
life  through  his  name. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


233 


Phil.  2:6.  Being  in  the  form  of  God  and  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal,  etc. 

Col.  1:16.  For  by  him  were  all  things  created. 

Col.  2:9.  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily. 

(c)  Confession  of  others. 

Isa.  9:6.  He  shall  be  called — The  Mighty  God,  The  everlast¬ 
ing  Father. 

Matt.  27:54.  The  centurion  and  others:  Truly  this  was  the 
Son  of  God. 

Lk.  4:41.  And  demons  came  out  of  many: — Thou  art  Christ 
the  Son  of  God. 

(d)  Titles  applied  to  Christ. 

God.  Immanuel.  Alpha  and  Omega.  King  of  Kings, 
and  Lord  of  Lords. 

(e)  His  works. 

His  miracles,  his  resurrection,  supernatural  knowledge, 
his  lofty  doctrine. 

(f)  His  power  and  influence  in  the  world. 

(g)  Another  proof  of  Christ’s  Deity  is  the  fact  that 
all  judgment  is  committed  to  the  Son. 

Jno.  5:22.  For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  com¬ 
mitted  all  judgment  to  the  Son. 

Acts  10:42.  It  is  he  who  hath  been  ordained  of  God  to  be 
the  judge  of  living  and  dead. 

Acts  17:31.  Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained, 
whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  to  all  men  in  that  he  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  any  one  should  pass  upon  the 
destiny  of  all  men  but  he  who  is  omniscient  God. 

(h)  The  experiential  proof.  The  best  proof  is  the 
experience  of  divine  grace  that  regenerates  the  soul.  A 
candidate  for  the  ministry  being  asked  by  the  examiner 
how  he  knew  Christ  was  divine,  replied  with  emotion :  “Why 
bless  you,  man,  he  saved  my  soul.” 

3.  His  Humanity. 

(a)  Christ  had  a  human  body,  could  be  seen,  felt, 
handled — 1  Jno.  1:1. 

He  was  born,  grew,  came  to  maturity,  appeared  in 
form  as  a  man,  ate,  drank,  thirsted,  slept,  was  weary,  died, 


234 


SOTERIOLOGY 


was  buried,  rose  and  was  recognized  by  his  physical  char¬ 
acteristics. 

He  was  called:  The  man  Christ  Jesus,  1  Tim.  2:5,  also 
The  Son  of  Man,  seed  of  the  woman,  son  of  David.  The 
genealogy  in  Matthew  traces  his  descent  from  David  and 
the  one  in  Luke  from  Adam. 

Lk.  24:39.  Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet, — handle  me  and  see; 
for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  have. 

Rom.  1:3.  — who  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according 

to  the  flesh. 

Heb.  2:14.  Forasmuch  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh 
and  blood  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same. 

(b)  Jesus  Christ  also  possessed  a  human  soul;  called 
“a  reasonable  soul,”  a  rational  human  nature,  i.  e.  a  spirit 
with  its  powers  of  intellect,  feeling,  will  and  conscience. 

He  loved,  sympathized,  wept,  exercised  the  feelings 
of  a  man,  thought,  talked,  willed,  chose  thus  and  so,  groaned 
in  spirit,  and  was  troubled. 

Heb.  2:16.  Verily  he  took  not  the  nature  of  angels  but  he 
took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham. 

Heb.  2:17.  In  all  things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto 
his  brethren. 

Lk.  2:52.  And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature  and 
in  favor,  etc. 

Matt.  26:38.  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto  death. 

Mk.  13:32.  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not 
even  the  angels,  neither  the  Son,  etc.,  shows  some  things  not  known 
to  the  human  mind  of  Christ;  which  could  not  be  true  of  his  divine 
nature. 

If  Jesus  Christ  did  not  have  a  human  soul  as  well  as 
a  human  body,  he  would  not  be  truly  man. 

4.  The  distinction  of  the  two  natures. 

(a)  The  word  “nature”  here  means  substance  with 
its  attributes.  The  two  natures  are  the  human  soul  with 
its  faculties  and  a  divine  substance  with  its  attributes. 

(b)  These  two  natures  stand  together  in  the  person 
of  Christ. 

(c)  The  Logos  or  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead 
does  not  take  the  place  of,  and  exclude  the  human  soul 
of  Jesus,  as  some  ancients  believed.  In  such  case  there 
would  be  no  true  humanity. 

There  is  a  complete  human  nature  and  a  complete 
divine  nature  in  Jesus  Christ. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


235 


(d)  The  two  natures  are  not  mixed  or  confused  so 
as  to  make  a  third  something  neither  human  nor  divine; 
as  an  acid  and  alkali  unite  and  form  a  neutral  salt.  If 
the  two  natures  were  mingled  Christ  would  be  neither  truly 
God  nor  truly  man;  and  he  is  declared  to  be  both  God 
and  man. 

Each  nature  retains  its  attributes,  just  as  the  body 
and  soul  of  man  are  one  person  and  two  natures,  and  each 
nature  retains  its  peculiar  attributes.  The  body  does  not 
partake  of  the  attributes  of  the  soul,  nor  the  soul  partake 
of  the  attributes  of  the  body.  So  Christ’s  humanity  does 
not  partake  of  the  attributes  of  divinity,  nor  his  divinity 
partake  of  the  attributes  of  his  humanity. 

Christ’s  human  mind  increased  in  wisdom;  but  his 
divine  mind  was  always  omniscient.  His  human  will  had 
only  human  power,  but  his  divine  will  was  omnipotent. 

5.  The  union  of  the  two  natures  in  one  person. 

(a)  In  the  person  of  Christ  there  is  a  complete  hu¬ 
man  nature,  body  and  soul,  and  a  complete  divine  nature, 
with  all  its  attributes. 

(b)  These  are  one  person  and  not  two. 

It  might  be  thought  that  the  human  nature  of  Jesus 
constituted  a  person  and  the  Logos  or  second  person  of 
the  trinity  constituted  a  person  and  therefore  there  were 
two  persons. 

But  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  was  never  a  separate 
person,  never  had  any  existence  apart  from  the  divine  na¬ 
ture,  had  no  individual  subsistence.  The  Logos  united  not 
with  a  human  person,  but  with  a  human  nature. 

Again  the  two  natures  never  address  each  other  nor 
send  each  other  as  is  the  case  with  the  persons  of  the 
Trinity. 

Again  the  one  person  of  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  terms 
true  of  both  natures,  but  always  as  one  person  e.  g. 

Things  said  of  the  person  true  of  the  divine  nature 
only : — 

“Before  Abraham  was  I  am”  true  of  the  divine  nature. 

“The  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 
began.” 


236 


SOTERIOLOGA 


Things  said  of  the  person  true  of  the  human  nature 
only: — 

“I  thirst.”  “My  soul  is  sorrowful  even  unto  death.” 

“Crucified  the  Lord  of  glory” — Crucified  body  only. 

Of  the  acts  of  Christ  some  are  purely  human, — eating 
drinking,  sleeping.  Some  purely  divine, — creation,  preser¬ 
vation,  resurrection.  Some  theanthropic, — that  is,  in  which 
both  natures  concur, — the  work  of  redemption  is  thean¬ 
thropic,  God  spoke  to  us  by  his  Son, — theanthropic.  He 
sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God, — theanthropic. 

This  linguistic  usage  shows  that  the  two  natures  are 
regarded  as  but  one  person. 

We  are  two  natures  in  one  person  and  sometimes  desig¬ 
nate  ourselves  by  one  of  the  natures  as,  I  walk,  or  I  think. 
The  same  I  that  walks  is  the  I  that  thinks. 

(c)  This  union  is  not  the  transmutation  of  one  sub¬ 
stance  into  another.  The  divine  nature  does  not  become 
human  and  the  human  nature  does  not  become  divine. 

The  text  Jno.  1:14,  The  Word  became  flesh,  must  not 
be  pressed  to  mean  a  transmutation  or  transubstantiation 
of  the  divine  into  the  human.  That  would  take  away  the 
divinity.  If  the  divine  nature  should  take  on  the  limita¬ 
tions  of  the  human  it  would  cease  to  be  divine. 

A  spirit  has  not  flesh  and  bones  neither  becomes  flesh 
and  bones. 

The  attributes  of  matter  are  the  opposite  of  those 
of  spirit  and  vice  versa.  We  must  understand  this  text 
in  the  light  of  what  we  know  from  other  sources  and 
passages. 

The  word  “became”  has  not  the  force  of  transmute; 
but  means,  came  to  pass,  occurred,  took  place.  Now  what 
occurred  or  came  to  pass?  Why  a  new  visible  human 
personality,  the  God-man, — the  human  mode  of  existence 
in  which  Christ  appeared.  This  came  into  existence. 

John  further  expresses  the  Incarnation  by  saying, 
I  Jno.  1:2,  The  life  was  manifested.  I  Jno.  4:2,  Jesus  is 
the  Christ  come  IN  flesh.  He  was  in  the  flesh,  but  not 
identical  with  it. 

And  “flesh”  here  means  the  whole  human  nature  and 
not  merely  body. 

II  J  no.  1:7.  Deceivers  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
IN  the  flesh. 

I  Tim.  3:16.  Manifested  in  the  flesh. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


237 


These  passages  draw  a  distinction  between  the  Logos 
and  the  flesh  in  which  he  was  manifested. 

This  ought  to  dispose  of  any  transmutation  theory. 

When  the  Catechism  says :  “God  became  man,”  it  means 
that  God  united  himself  with  man,  so  that  he  appeared 
as  a  man;  and  not  that  he  changed  himself  into  a  man. 

(d)  In  the  theanthropic  person  there  is  a  union  and 
communion  of  natures  (koinonia  idiomatum)  ;  but  not  a 
communication,  impartation,  or  transfer  of  the  attributes 
of  one  nature  to  the  other  (communicatio  idiomatum). 

The  humanity  does  not  impart  its  limitations  to  the 
divine  nature,  and  the  divine  nature  does  not  make  the 
humanity  infinite,  omnipresent,  omnipotent,  etc.  The 
Lutherans  hold  the  communication  of  divine  attributes  to 
the  glorified  humanity  of  Christ  to  support  the  doctrine  of 
consubstantiation,  so  as  to  have  an  inexhaustible  body  of 
Christ  in  the  Lord’s  Supper. 

But  we  think  that  if  divine  attributes  are  conferred 
on  the  human  it  ceases  to  be  human,  and  if  human  attri¬ 
butes  are  transferred  to  God  he  would  cease  to  be  God. 
The  human  does  not  become  divine  nor  the  divine  human. 
The  attributes  of  matter  cannot  be  transferred  to  spirit, 
nor  the  attributes  of  spirit  to  matter;  but  they  may  exist 
in  a  personal  union  as  is  the  case  with  our  bodies  and  souls. 

But  there  is  a  union  and  communion  of  natures  in 
the  theanthropos  which  does  impart  knowledge  and  power 
without  making  the  human  divine. 

I  can  impart  knowledge  and  inspiration  to  you;  but  I 
cannot  impart  the  substance  or  faculties  of  my  mind. 

The  Jews  said:  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having 
never  learned?  Christ’s  knowledge  was  more  than  that 
gained  in  ordinary  ways. 

The  human  Jesus  had  as  much  knowledge  and  power 
as  the  divine  nature  contributed  to  him ;  but  that  doubtless 
limited  by  a  human  capability. 

If  he  knew  the  thoughts  of  men,  read  their  hearts, 
it  was  the  divine  nature  that  conveyed  such  knowledge 
to  the  human  mind  of  Christ,  and  the  human  was  the  med¬ 
ium  of  expression  for  the  divine  mind. 

If  he  was  ignorant  of  the  day  of  judgment,  it  was 
because  the  divine  nature  had  not  disclosed  the  thing  to 
his  human  intelligence. 


238 


SOTERIOLOGY 


When  Christ  was  a  babe  in  the  manger  his  divine  na¬ 
ture  was  just  as  omnipotent  and  omniscient  as  ever  but 
did  not  manifest  itself  at  that  time. 

Avoid  the  error  that  the  divine  nature  came  upon 
Christ  first  at  his  baptism. 

The  relation  of  the  human  mind  in  Christ  to  the  di¬ 
vine  mind  was  similar  to  the  relation  of  a  prophet’s  mind 
to  God.  As  the  prophet  Isaiah  could  know  no  more  of  the 
secrets  of  God  than  God  disclosed  to  him,  so  the  human 
mind  of  Christ  could  know  no  more  than  the  Logos  made 

known. 

General  Remark. 

There  is  in  the  Godhead  three  persons  in  one  substance. 

There  is  in  Jesus  Christ  three  substances,  human  body, 
human  soul,  and  a  divine  nature. 

In  man  there  is  one  person  in  two  substances. 

In  Jesus  Christ  there  are  two  sets  of  faculties;  a  hu¬ 
man  mind,  feeling  and  will ;  and  a  divine  mind,  affection 
and  will;  and  these  two  sets  of  faculties  are  so  united  as 
to  constitute  but  one  person. 

6.  Christ’s  sinlessness  and  impeccability. 

(a)  Sinlessness  means  without  sin. 

Impeccability  means  not  conquerable  by  sin. 

One  is  expressed  by  “posse  non  peccare.” 

The  other  by  “non  posse  pecare.” 

(b)  Christ  is  universally  believed  to  be  sinless. 

(c)  All  are  not  agreed  as  to  his  impeccability. 

Some  say  that  temptation  implies  the  possibility  of 
sin  and  if  it  was  impossible  for  Christ  to  sin,  then  his 
temptation  was  unreal. 

But  it  is  answered  that  there  may  be  a  high  degree 
of  temptation  where  there  is  no  possibility  of  its  succeeding. 

Impeccability  means  not  that  temptation  could  not 
appeal  to  Christ,  but  that  it  could  not  conquer  him.  This 
was  due  to  the  support  of  his  divine  nature,  as  the  divine 
nature  would  be  involved  in  culpability  if  the  person  yielded 
to  sin. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


239 


No  temptation  to  Christ  arose  out  of  a  sinful  nature 
as  is  true  of  man;  but  the  solicitation  addressed  to  his 
holy  nature  may  have  been  quite  as  powerful. 

Heb.  4:15.  Tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are  yet  without 
sin  perhaps  means  that  he  was  tempted  as  we  are  except  by  those 
desires  that  arise  from  inward  evil. 

7.  Errors  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ. 

(a)  Denial  of  His  humanity. 

The  Gnostics  denied  Christ’s  humanity  on  the  ground 
of  their  Manichsean  philosophy.  That  philosophy  taught 
that  evil  arises  from  matter.  Man  consists  of  a  spirit  com¬ 
bined  with  a  material  body  and  by  this  union  with  the 
material  the  spirit  is  defiled. 

Salvation  therefore  consists  in  emancipation  from  the 
body.  To  effect  this  redemption  Christ  came  into  the  world. 
It  was  necessary  he  should  appear  as  a  man;  but  as  he 
could  not  be  connected  with  matter  and  retain  his  spiritu¬ 
ality  his  body  was  only  a  phantasm,  a  mere  appearance 
without  substance  or  reality. 

He  therefore  was  not  born  nor  did  he  suffer  and  die. 
Some  admitted  he  had  a  body  not  of  matter  but  some 
ethereal  or  celestial  substance. 

The  Docetse  were  a  Gnostic  sect  who  made  this  position 
famous. 

(b)  Denial  of  His  Divinity. 

The  Arians  held  that  God  was  one  eternal  person  and 
that  Christ  was  the  first  created  being,  by  whom  God 
created  the  world,  super-angelic,  became  incarnate  in  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  Nevertheless  he  was  a  creature  of  different 
substance  from  God, — Heteroousios. 

The  Semi- Arians  held  that  the  absolute  self-existent 
God  was  one  person.  The  Son  was  a  Divine  Person,  not 
equal  with  the  Father,  not  identical  in  substance,  but  simi¬ 
lar, — Homoiousios. 

.  The  ordodox  of  that  day  said  that  Christ  was  of  the 
same  nature  with  the  Father, — Homoousios. 

Unitarians  now  deny  the  Deity  of  Christ.  They  con¬ 
sider  Him  a  mere  man. 

(c)  The  Apollinarians  held  that  the  Logos  took  the 
place  of  the  human  soul  ;  so  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  human 
body  plus  a  Divine  Spirit. 


240 


SOTERIOLOGY 


They  were  led  to  this  because  many  of  them  believed 
that  even  man’s  soul  was  part  of  the  divine  substance. 
They  therefore  attacked  the  two  complete  natures  in  Christ. 

(d)  The  Nestorians  denied  the  union  of  the  two  na¬ 
tures  in  one  person. 

They  insisted  on  the  distinction  of  the  two  natures 
till  they  practically  made  two  persons.  If  there  are  two 
natures  in  Christ  as  separate  as  two  shillings  why  then 
there  must  be  a  human  person  that  says  I,  and  a  divine 
person  that  says  I. 

(e)  The  Eutychians  went  to  the  opposite  extreme 

and  said  there  was  only  one  nature  and  that  was  divine. 
Everything  about  Christ  was  Divine,  even  his  body  was 
divine,  it  was  the  Logos  that  was  born,  and  the  Logos 
that  suffered  and  died. 

Eutyches  said  that  there  were  two  natures  before  the 
union,  but  only  one  after  it.  The  two  natures  were  so 
united  as  to  become  one. 

(f)  The  Lutherans  hold  to  the  communication  of  di¬ 
vine  attributes  to  the  human  nature,  so  that  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  is  Almighty,  Omniscient,  and  Omnipres¬ 
ent  both  as  to  soul  and  body. 

These  divine  attributes  of  the  human  nature  were 
either  concealed  on  earth  or  assumed  at  the  ascension. 

(g)  The  Doctrine  of  modern  Kenosis,  i.  e.  emptying. 
Phil.  2:7. 

The  Logos  became  man  by  reducing  Himself  to  the 
capacity  of  a  babe  and  then  increased  in  wisdom  and  power 
till  at  length  he  assumed  divine  nature. 

Like  a  great  gas  jet  reduced  to  a  spark  and  then 
turned  up  to  full  head.  This  makes  God  undeify  Himself, 
makes  the  Redeemer  not  truly  man.  He  would  not  be  the 
seed  of  Abraham  if  He  had  no  human  soul. 

(h)  The  Socinians  held  that  Christ  was  mere  man 
in  Himself,  had  no  prior  existence  but  had  a  miraculous 
birth,  and  was  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  became 
Divine  and  is  to  be  worshipped. 

The  Unitarians  are  really  a  branch  of  the  Socinians. 

(i)  The  Russelites  like  the  Socinians  believe  that 
Christ  was  a  man  on  earth  but  became  God.  We  meet 


SOTERIOLOGY 


241 


them  by  showing-  that  Christ  was  called  God  while  on 
earth  and  claimed  to  be  God  while  on  earth.  He  was  called 
Son  of  God  before  He  was  born. 

(j)  Pantheistic  Christology. 

Pantheism  recognizes  no  personal  extramundane  God. 
All  things  developed  out  of  an  impersonal  something  that 
always  existed.  God  comes  into  visible  form  in  the  ma¬ 
terial  universe,  and  into  the  highest  form  in  the  intelli¬ 
gence  and  consciousness  of  man. 

Incarnation  means  God  existing  in  the  human  race. 

Religion  consists  in  the  recognition  by  man  of  his 
oneness  or  identity  with  God.  He  who  has  the  greatest 
conviction  and  most  vivid  and  abiding  consciousness  of  this 
oneness  with  God  is  the  most  religious  man.  Jesus  Christ 
was  that  man.  He  was  the  ideal  man,  not  different  in  his 
origin  from  any  other  man  but  possessed  with  a  greater 
God  consciousness.  For  this  reason  he  is  called  Divine  or 
God. 

His  material  and  spiritual  substance  was  just  the  same 
as  that  of  any  other  man;  and  He  saves  by  bringing  to 
mankind  a  better  conception  of  their  oneness  with  God. 

His  death,  crucifixion,  resurrection  and  ascension  are 
matters  of  no  account.  He  does  not  save  by  His  death 
and  expiation;  but  by  influence  over  men,  in  making  them 
more  conscious  of  their  Godhead. 


Section  III.  His  Mediatorial  Offices. 

Catechism  23.  What  offices  does  Christ  execute  as  our 
Redeemer? 

1.  The  office  of  Prophet,  Cat.  24. 

Christ  is  the  revealer  of  God. 

(a)  In  the  theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(b)  In  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets. 

(c)  In  the  Incarnation,  with  its  direct  and  personal 
teachings,  e.  g.  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen. 

(d)  By  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles  and  others 
who  wrote  the  Scriptures. 


242 


SOTERIOLOGY 


(e)  Christ  sent  the  Spirit  by  whom  inspiration  was 
given,  hence  the  Catechism  says:  “By  word  and  spirit.” 

(f)  There  is  no  need  of  further  revelation.  Rev. 
22:18  “If  any  one  shall  add.” 

2.  The  office  of  a  Priest.  Cat.  25. 

(a)  What  is  a  Priest?  Heb.  5:1.  “Every  high  priest 
is  ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God  that  he 
may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  men.” 

Heb.  8:3.  As  every  high  priest  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and 
sacrifices  therefore  it  is  needful  that  this  one  also  have  something 
to  offer. 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  priest  offered  expiatory  sacri¬ 
fice  on  the  ground  of  which  men’s  sins  were  remitted. 

He  came  to  God  for  men,  presented  sacrifices  and  inter¬ 
ceded  for  them.  He  was  thus  a  mediator  between  God 
and  man. 

The  Old  Testament  priesthood  was  a  type  of  Christ’s 
priesthood. 

(b)  The  priesthood  was  fulfilled  in  Christ.  There  is 
now  no  priest  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word. 

There  is  no  expiatory  sacrifice  now  to  be  offered. 

Christ  did  that  once  for  all. 

Christ  did  not  appoint  priests  to  offer  sacrifices  but 
he  did  appoint  teachers  and  preachers  to  minister  to  the 
church. 

Romanists  teach  that  salvation  can  be  obtained  only 
through  the  intervention  of  the  priest;  because  the  sacra¬ 
ments  are  the  channels  of  grace  and  to  be  available  must 
be  administered  by  men  canonically  ordained.  Hence  they 
have  priests,  and  call  the  Lord’s  Supper  an  atoning  sacri¬ 
fice  a  real  expiation  of  sin,  in  which  Christ’s  sacrifice  is 
repeated. 

(c)  The  important  feature  of  the  priestly  office  called 
the  Atonement  will  be  considered  under  a  special  head. 

(d)  Christ  makes  intercession  at  God’s  throne  for 
his  people. 

He  presents  his  plea  on  the  ground  of  his  atonement. 

To  make  the  Virgin  Mary  an  intercessor  between  man 
and  Christ  is  derogatory  to  Christ  and  attributes  undue 
prerogatives  to  a  human  being. 


SOTERIOLOGV 


243 


3.  The  Office  of  a  King. 

(a)  God  as  Creator  was  and  is  sovereign  over  all 
his  creatures. 

(b)  By  the  fall  man  revolted  to  the  kingdom  of  Satan. 

(c)  God  re-established  his  kingdom  on  earth  by  a 
covenant  requiring  faith  in  a  Redeemer. 

(d)  Entrance  into  this  kingdom  was  by  personal  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  the  covenant. 

(e)  The  kingdom  assumed  more  and  more  organiza¬ 
tion  as  time  went  on ;  under  the  early  patriarchs,  Abraham, 
Moses,  and  Christ. 

(f)  Christ  came  as  King.  The  kingdom  had  been 
in  the  world  since  Eden  but  the  King  not  visibly  present. 

(g)  Submission  to  the  king,  to  his  laws  and  rule,  is 
essential  to  citizenship  in  the  kingdom. 

(h)  The  kingdom  is  eternal,  spiritual,  both  visible 
and  invisible. 

(i)  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  word  “king¬ 
dom”  in  the  Bible  refers  only  to  a  future  Millennial  rule; 
or  that  the  kingdom  was  removed  from  the  world  when 
Christ  ascended;  or  that  the  church  age  is  to  be  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  kingdom  age. 

(j)  Catechism  26  describes  Christ’s  office  as  King. 


244 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Chapter  V.  The  Atonement. 

Section  I.  The  Importance  of  the  Doctrine. 

1.  The  Atonement  is  the  central  fact  of  Christianity. 

Any  system  that  leaves  out  the  Atonement  is  not 
Christianity. 

2.  This  was  the  subject  of  the  first  promise;  “The 
seed  of  the  woman,  etc. 

3.  Christ  said:  “To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this 
purpose  came  I  into  the  world.” 

4.  The  Atonement  is  that  on  which  man’s  salvation 
depends. 

Whoever  trifles  with  the  atonement  trifles  with  his 
own  and  the  world’s  salvation. 

This  is  the  danger  of  Christian  Science.  It  repudiates 
the  atonement  by  the  suffering  and  death  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  repudiates  the  way  of  salvation. 

This  is  the  danger  of  Unitarianism  and  all  systems 
which  make  Christ  but  a  man,  and  deny  his  expiatory 
death. 

Section  II.  Terms  Defined. 

To  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  the  terms 
must  be  discriminatingly  apprehended. 

1.  Atonement  is  not  sufficiently  defined  by  calling  it 
at-one-ment.  That  expresses  only  one  idea  in  the  doctrine 
—namely  the  feature  of  reconciliation.  The  atonement 
means  far  more  than  that. 

2.  The  word  guilt  expresses  two  things;  first,  blame¬ 
worthiness,  pollution,  moral  turpitude,  criminality;  second, 
liability  to  punishment  or  penalty. 

3.  Expiation  means  purging  out,  washing  away,  cover¬ 
ing,  making  reparation  or  satisfaction;  especially  by  suf¬ 
fering  a  penalty, — as  expiating  a  crime.  Paying  the  pen¬ 
alty  implies  the  securing  of  remission. 

Expiation  is  a  very  important  word  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  atonement. 

4.  Propitiation  means  to  appease  or  render  favorable 
one  who  has  been  offended.  Guilt  is  expiated  and  God 
propitiated. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


245 


5.  Vicarious  means  substitutionary;  a  vicar  is  a  sub¬ 
stitute  or  one  who  takes  another's  place. 

6.  Reconciliation  means  bringing  into  harmony  or 
agreement. 

7.  Impute  means  to  set  to  one's  account. 

Rom.  2:26.  Shall  not  his  uncircumcision  be  counted  for  cir¬ 
cumcision? 

Rom.  4:3.  Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was  counted  to  him 
for  righteousness. 

Our  sins  were  imputed  to  Christ  his  righteousness  im¬ 
puted  to  us. 

Thus  in  the  Atonement  a  vicarious  sacrifice  expiates 
guilt,  propitiates  God,  and  reconciles  God  and  man. 


Section  III.  The  two-fold  work  of  atonement. 

Christ  effected  the  atonement. 

1.  By  obedience  to  the  law. 

2.  By  his  sufferings  and  death. 

By  his  obedience  Christ  fulfilled  the  law  expressed  in 
the  covenant  of  works,  which  Adam  failed  to  keep. 

By  his  sufferings  and  death  he  paid  the  penalty  due 
for  sin.  The  law  offered  life  for  obedience  and  threatened 
death  for  disobedience.  The  precept  of  the  law  as  well  as 
the  penalty  of  the  law  must  be  fulfilled.  Christ  met  all 
the  demands  of  the  law  both  precept  and  penalty.  Had  he 
failed  in  either,  no  atonement  would  have  been  made,  and 
no  redemption  effected. 

The  reality  of  the  expiatory  work  is  not  confined  en¬ 
tirely  to  the  physical  sufferings  and  death,  or  what  is  called 
the  objective  side  of  the  atonement.  The  subjective  side 
must  have  its  weight. 

The  physical  suffering  is  not  more  important  than  the 
righteous  disposition  that  led  him  to  submit  to  it. 

The  spiritual  attitude  of  Christ  toward  the  work  of 
atonement  has  more  qualitative  value  than  the  physical 
sufferings  and  death.  We  must  feel  that  the  atoning  work 
was  wrought  by  the  spirit  of  Christ  quite  as  much  as  by 
his  bodily  sacrifice  or  more. 

Distinguish  carefully  the  usages  of  the  terms  subjec¬ 
tive  and  objective  in  this  connection. 


246 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Christ’s  physical  experiences  are  called  objective,  and 
his  spiritual  experiences  subjective.  There  was  therefore 
a  subjective  and  an  objective  side  to  Christ’s  work. 

But  the  atonement  as  a  whole  was  objective  to  man 
with  a  subjective  result  by  way  of  application. 

Those  theories  that  describe  the  atonement  as  merely 

subjective  constitute  one  of  the  worst  heresies  of  the  age, 
since  they  deny  the  vicarious  and  expiatory  aspects  of 
Christ’s  work. 

Section  IV.  The  Atonement  Expresses  the  Total  Di¬ 
vine  Nature. 

1.  There  can  be  no  antagonism  between  any  two  or 
more  of  God’s  attributes.  Some  have  stressed  God’s  justice 
to  the  exclusion  of  his  love,  and  some  have  stressed  God’s 
love  till  justice  was  ruled  out. 

(a)  Anselm  made  satisfaction  necessary  for  the  honor 
of  God;  which  the  theologians  of  the  Reformation  modified 
to  mean  the  justice  of  God,  or  the  requirements  of  God’s 
law.  And  while  this  later  form  of  the  satisfaction  theory 
expresses  an  essential  fact,  it  must  be  duly  coupled  with 
the  love  of  God  as  the  moving  cause. 

“God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  His  Son.” 

“God  commendeth  his  love  to  us  in  that  while  we  were 
yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.” 

The  Atonement  is  the  supreme  expression  of  God’s 
love;  and  it  is  the  characteristic  of  love  that  it  longs  to 
impart  itself  and  possess  its  object. 

To  leave  out  God’s  love  is  to  leave  out  the  heart  of 
the  Atonement. 

(b)  On  the  other  hand,  the  moral  influence  advocates, 
from  Abelard  to  Horace  Bushnell,  have  stressed  God’s  love 
to  the  exclusion  of  his  justice.  They  repudiate  substitu¬ 
tion,  satisfaction,  expiation,  etc.,  as  unnecessary  and  un¬ 
desirable.  Man  is  .moved  by  God’s  love,  turns  to  God  in 
view  of  his  love,  and  atonement  is  nothing  but  repentance. 

(c)  God’s  nature  is  a  perfect  harmony,  and  every  act 
of  his  is  in  perfect  consistency  with  every  attribute  of  that 
nature. 

Any  view  of  the  Atonement  that  leaves  out  of  account 
any  attribute  of  his  nature  is  partial  and  to  that  extent 
misleading. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


247 


Holiness  is  so  essential  to  his  nature  that  God  cannot 
look  upon  sin  with  approval;  and  justice  is  so  essential 
that  sin  cannot  go  unpunished.  Love  is  so  essential  that 
holiness  could  not  be  perfect  without  it,  and  holiness  in 
turn  is  so  necessary  to  love  that  love  would  be  capricious 
and  erratic  unless  guided  and  controlled  by  holiness. 

The  Atonement,  therefore,  is  not  the  expression  of 
one  attribute  of  God’s  nature,  but  of  all. 

2.  Again  the  Atonement  is  equally  the  expression  of 
all  persons  of  the  Godhead.  All  views  that  place  Father 
and  Son  in  any  degree  of  opposition,  as  if  the  Father  had 
to  be  placated  at  the  expense  of  the  Son,  are  misleading 
and  mischievous  in  their  tendency. 

The  Son  is  equally  involved  with  the  Father  in  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  his  justice;  and  the  Father  is  equally  involved 
with  the  Son  in  the  expression  of  his  love  and  sacrifice. 

The  Atonement  expresses  the  entire  Godhead  with  all 
the  divine  attributes. 

Section  V.  The  Main  Features  of  the  Atonement. 

1.  It  was  in  one  aspect  sacrificial. 

(a)  Some  say  “We  are  not  saved  by  Christ’s  death, 
but  by  His  life, — usually  said  by  Unitarians.  This  class 
set  up  Christ  as  an  example,  but  deny  the  efficiency  of 
His  death.  Thus  salvation  comes  as  the  reward  of  char¬ 
acter  and  works,  as  we  pattern  after  Christ ;  but  everywhere 
the  Scriptures  stress  Christ’s  death. 

(b)  Christ’s  sacrifice  was  more  than  the  sacrifice  of 
a  martyr.  A  man  might  be  a  martyr  to  a  good  cause, 
and  his  example  very  praiseworthy ;  but  that  sacrifice  would 
make  no  atonement  for  sin.  The  meaning  of  Christ’s  death 
is  miles  deeper  than  mere  martyrdom. 

(c)  The  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  were  types 
of  Christ’s  sacrifice,  and  whatever  they  meant,  Christ’s 
death  must  also  mean.  As  they  were  sacrifices  for  sin, 
so  Christ’s  death  was  a  sacrifice  for  sin. 

(d)  The  New  Testament  represents  Christ’s  death  as 
a  sacrifice. 

Jno.  1:29.  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God. 

I  Cor.  5:7.  For  even  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us. 

Ephes.  5:3.  Christ  hath  given  Elimself  for  us,  an  offering  and 
a  sacrifice  to  God. 

Heb.  7:27.  This  He  did  once  when  He  offered  up  Himself. 


248 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Heb.  9:14.  Offered  Himself  without  spot  to  God.  (This  is  said 
after  a  reference  to  Old  Testament  sacrifice.) 

Heb.  9:23.  Christ  a  better  sacrifice. 

Heb.  9:26.  Now  hath  He  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Himself. 

Heb.  10:12.  But  He,  after  He  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for 
sins  forever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Many  of  these  texts  being  specifically  addressed  to 
Jewish  Christians,  could  bear  no  other  meaning  than  this, 
that  Christ  was  a  sacrifice  in  the  same  sense  as  the  sacri¬ 
ficial  offerings  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

2.  The  Atonement  was  expiatory. 

(a)  Statement:  In  the  atonement,  Christ  paid  the 

penalty  of  sin,  fulfilled  the  law,  satisfied  justice,  and  se¬ 
cured  remission.  Catechism:  How  does  Christ  execute  the 
office  of  Priest?  Confession  of  Faith,  Heidelburg  Cate¬ 
chism  No.  60,  Formula  of  Concord,  and  all  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  confessions  make  similar  statements. 

(b)  Proof  from  the  Old  Testament. 

The  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Old  Testament  show  how 
penalty  was  exacted,  and  remission  and  forgiveness  de¬ 
clared. 

Lev.  IV  and  VI  describe  the  sacrificial  atonement  for  sin. 

Lev.  1:4.  And  he  shall  put  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  burnt 
offering,  and  it  shall  be  accepted  for  him  to  make  atonement  for  him. 

This  placing  of  the  hand  on  the  head  showed  the  transfer  of 
the  guilt  of  the  offerer  to  the  offering. 

Lev.  4:3,  4.  The  sin  of  a  priest:  Shall  bring  bullock,  lay  hand 
on  head,  kill  the  bullock,  and  sprinkle  the  blood  before  the  Lord. 

Lev.  4:13 — 20.  Sin  of  whole  congregation:  bring  a  bullock, 
lay  hand  on  head,  kill,  and  sprinkle  blood. 

Vs.  20.  And  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  them  and 
it  shall  be  forgiven  them. 

Lev.  4:22.  When  a  ruler  hath  sinned:  bring  an  offering. 

Vs.  26.  And  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  as 
concerning  his  sin,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him. 

Lev.  4:27.  If  any  one  of  common  people  sin  through  ignorance. 

Vs.  29.  Lay  his  hand  and  slay. 

Vs.  31.  Priest  shall  make  atonement,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven. 

See  also  Lev.  4:35,  Lev.  5.10,  Lev.  5:13,  Lev.  5:16,  Lev.  5:18, 
Lev.  6:7. 

All  show  sin  expiated  by  sacrifice  and  forgiven. 

Lev.  16  gives  rites  of  Day  of  Atonement.  All  point  to  ex¬ 
piation  and  removal  of  sin.  The  rites  on  the  great  Day  of  Atonement 
included  the  sprinkling  of  blood  on  the  mercy-seat,  showing  how 
the  blood  stood  between  the  law  and  the  sinner.  The  law  cursed 
the  transgressor,  but  the  blood  removed  the  curse. 

Lev.  16:8 — 10,  21,  22.  Two  goats,  one  sacrificed — one  called 
scapegoat  led  away  to  the  wilderness.  One  goat  sacrificed  to  show 


SOTERIOLOGY 


249 


the  paying  of  the  penalty,  and  one  led  away  to  show  the  removal 
of  guilt. 

Lev.  17:11.  It  is  the  blood  that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the 

soul. 

II  Chron.  29:23,  24.  And  they  brought  forth  the  he-goats  for 
the  sin-offering  before  the  king  and  congregation,  and  they  laid  their 
hands  upon  them,  and  the  priests  killed  them  and  made  reconciliation 
with  their  blood  upon  the  altar,  to  make  an  atonement  for  all  Israel. 

The  Passover  shows  how  all  were  delivered  who  were 
behind  the  blood. 

(c)  Proof  from  the  New  Testament. 

The  New  Testament  puts  Christ’s  death  in  the  same 
light  as  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices. 

Jno.  1:29.  Behold!  the  lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world. 

Matt.  26:28.  For  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Covenant  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

Rom.  5:9.  Being  justified  by  his  blood  we  shall  be  saved  from 
wrath  through  him. 

Heb.  1:3.  When  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins. 

Heb.  9:13 — 14.  For  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  sanctifieth 
to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 
Christ  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  worship  the 
living  God. 

Heb.  9:22.  And  almost  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged  with 
blood;  and  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission. 

Heb.  9:26.  But  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he 
appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself. 

Heb.  9:28.  So  also  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins 
of  many. 

Heb.  10:4.  For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
goats  should  take  away  sins. 

Heb.  10:9 — 10.  Then  said  he,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will  O 
God.  He  taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second. 

By  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all. 

Heb.  10:12.  But  he,  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins 
forever,  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Heb.  10:14.  For  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever 
them  that  are  sanctified. 

I  Jno.  1:7.  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin. 

Rev.  1:5.  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our 
sins  in  his  own  blood. 

Rev.  7:14 — 15.  These  have  come  up  out  of  great  tribulation, 
and  have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of 
the  lamb.  Therefore  are  they  before  the  throne  of  God,  and  serve 
him  day  and  night  in  his  temple;  and  he  that  sitteth  on  the  throne 
shall  dwell  among  them. 

No  one  can  look  at  this  array  of  Scripture  teaching 
and  fail  to  see  the  expiatory  nature  of  Christ’s  death. 


250 


SOTERIOLOGY 


3.  It  was  vicarious. 

The  vicarious  feature  of  the  atonement  is  so  essential 
that  no  unvicarious  theory  in  any  adequate  way,  represents 
the  facts  or  the  meaning  of  the  atonement. 

(a)  Proofs  from  the  Old  Testament. 

All  those  passages  already  cited  which  describe  the 
laying  of  hands  on  the  head  of  the  victim  teach  the  transfer 
of  guilt  to  the  victim  and  the  vicarious  nature  of  the  of¬ 
fering. 

This  is  plainly  taught  in: 

Lev.  1:4.  And  he  shall  put  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  burnt 
offering  and  it  shall  be  accepted  for  him  to  make  atonement  for  him. 

Lev.  16:21.  And  Aaron  shall  lay  both  hands  upon  the  head  of 
the  live  goat  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  all  their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins,  putting  them 
upon  the  head  of  the  goat,  and  shall  send  him  away  by  the  hand 
of  a  fit  man  into  the  wilderness. 

The  priest  confesses  over  the  head  of  the  scape  goat 
all  the  iniquities  and  transgressions  of  Israel. 

Lev.  16:22.  And  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniqui¬ 
ties  unto  a  land  not  inhabited. 

This  shows  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  the  offerer 
to  the  offering. 

The  name  by  which  the  victim  was  called — viz.  sin 
offering  or  guilt  offering  indicated  the  transfer  of  the  sin 
or  guilt  to  the  offering. 

Isa.  53:4 — 5.  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our 
sorrows;  yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken,  smitten  of  God  and  afflicted. 

But  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for 
our  iniquities;  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him;  and 
with  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 

Isa.  53:11.  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  shall 
be  satisfied;  by  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify 
many;  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities. 

Isa.  53:12.  Therefore  will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great, 
and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong;  because  he  hath  poured 
out  his  soul  unto  death;  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors; 
and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  intercession  for  the  trans¬ 
gressors. 

(b)  Proof  from  the  New  Testament. 

Jno.  1:29.  Christ  is  called  the  Lamb  of  God.  If  the  Lamb  was 
a  substitute  in  the  Old  Testament  economy  the  inference  is  that 
Christ  was  such. 

Matt.  20:28.  Christ  came  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many, 
the  word  ‘for’  is  in  Greek  “anti”  which  always  means  ‘instead  of’ 
therefore  as  a  substitute. 

Mk.  10:45.  Same. 

II  Cor.  5:15.  If  one  died  for  all  then  all  died.  The  preposition 
‘for’  is  “huper”  which  sometimes  means  ‘in  behalf  of’  and  sometimes 


SOTERIOLOGY 


251 


denotes  substitution.  The  sense  in  this  place  requires  the  idea  of 
substitution. 

II  Cor.  5:21.  He  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us;  plainly  the  ‘for’ 
implies  substitution. 

Gal.  3:13.  Christ  has  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law 
having  made  a  curse  for  (huper)  us.  The  idea  is  plainly  one  of 
substitution. 

I  Pet.  3:18.  Christ  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  righteous  for 
(huper)  the  unrighteous.  (See,  The  Atonement,  R.  W.  Dale,  pp. 
133—137.) 

Heb.  9:28.  Says  he  bore  the  sins  of  many,  their  sins  were 
laid  on  him  as  the  sins  were  on  the  head  of  the  goat. 

I  Pet.  2:24.  Who  himself  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on 
the  tree,  that  we  being  dead  to  sins  should  live  unto  righteousness 
by  whose  stripes  we  were  healed.  (For  an  extended  discussion  of 
this  passage  see  The  Atonement,  R.  W.  Dale,  pp.  131 — 133.) 

4.  It  satisfied  the  demands  of  justice  or  the  law. 

The  law  of  God  cannot  be  annulled  neither  can  its 
demands  be  lowered.  How  should  man  be  just  with  God? 
— is  the  cry  of  the  awakened  conscience. 

But  how  shall  God  be  just  and  justify  the  ungodly, 
was  the  question  that  divine  love  set  itself  to  answer. 

Love  says:  Save  the  sinner.  Justice  says:  Exact  the 
penalty.  Both  are  attributes  of  God.  How  then  shall  God 
be  just  and  justify  the  ungodly?  The  atonement  of  Christ 
is  the  answer. 

The  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ  satisfies  the  demands 
of  justice  and  answers  the  cry  of  divine  love,  and  as  well 
gives  the  awakened  conscience  a  sufficient  ground  of  hope. 

Rom.  5:9.  Being  justified  by  his  blood  we  shall  be  saved  from 
wrath  through  him. 

Rom.  3:25.  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  a  propitiation  (mercy 
seat)  through  faith  in  his  blood  to  manifest  his  righteousness  in 
passing  over  sins. 

Rom.  3:26.  That  he  might  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him 
that  believeth  in  Jesus. 

Rom.  Chapter  2 — 4.  — argues  thus:  All  are  sinners.  All  are 

condemned  by  the  law  for  sin.  God  effects  redemption  by  Christ. 
Redemption  is  received  by  faith. 

Rom.  7:4.  Ye  were  made  dead  to  the  law  through  the  body 
of  Christ.  Illustrated  by  a  wife  set  free  from  the  law. 

Rom.  8:1,  2.  There  is  now  no  condemnation  etc. 

Gal.  2:16.  Man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but 
only  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Gal.  3:13.  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law 
being  made  a  curse  for  us. 

Gal.  4:4,  5.  God  sent  forth  his  Son  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law. 

Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that 
believeth. 


252 


SOTERIOLOGY 


II  Cor.  5:21.  He  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin 
that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him. 

Phil.  3:9.  Not  having  thine  own  righteousness  but  the  right¬ 
eousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith. 

The  rite  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  showed  that  the  de¬ 
mands  of  the  law  were  met  by  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice. 

The  present-day  New  Theology  demands  the  remission 
of  sin  without  atonement.  It  makes  light  of  sin  and  abro¬ 
gates  the  law.  The  whole  teaching  of  the  Bible  in  the 
rites  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  facts  and  teachings 
of  the  New  Testament  shows  that  a  substitute  always  bears 
the  penalty  when  sin  is  forgiven. 

Heb.  9:22.  Without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission. 

Dr.  Shedd,  page  392,  says:  “If  penalty  were  remitted 
by  sovereignty  merely,  without  any  judicial  ground  or 
reason  whatever; — if  it  were  inflicted  neither  upon  the  sin¬ 
ner  nor  upon  his  substitute,  this  would  be  the  ABOLITION 
of  penalty,  not  the  remission  of  it.” 

5.  It  was  Sufficient. 

(a)  Christ’s  sufferings  were  not  equal  in  kind  and 
amount  to  all  that  which  a  lost  race  would  have  suffered. 

(b)  Neither  was  it  a  little  taken  for  much  (accep- 
tatione  gratuita). 

God  could  not  accept  an  insignificant  penalty  for  the 
sins  of  the  race.  Else  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  would 
have  been  sufficient.  If  anything  less  could  have  availed 
then  Christ  need  not  have  come.  This  doctrine  of  accep- 
tatio  or  acceptilation  was  the  view  of  the  Remonstrants* 
and  of  Duns  Scotus  before  them. 

The  Remonstrants  denied  that  Christ’s  work  was  a 
satisfaction  of  justice  and  said  that  it  was  just  a  condition 
on  which  God  agreed  to  remit  sin.  They  said  that  the  sacri¬ 
fice  of  bulls  and  goats  was  no  equivalent  for  transgression 
but  God  saw  fit  to  make  that  a  ground  of  remission  and 
so  also  with  Christ’s  death. 

They  said,  the  holder  of  a  captive  can  take  what  he 
pleases  as  the  condition  of  deliverance  though  it  be  in  no 
comparison  to  the  value  of  the  captive.  So  Christ  made 
no  real  satisfaction  for  sin  but  God  in  His  sovereignty 
can  take  it  as  such. 


*The  Remonstrants  were  a  branch  of  the  Arminians  residing 
in  Holland.  Grotius  was  one  of  their  able  defenders. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


253 


But  this  is  open  to  the  objection  that  “the  sovereignty 
that  compels  justice  to  be  content  with  less  than  its  dues 
can  compel  it  to  be  content  with  nothing.” — Shedd,  II,  453. 

“If  a  government  has  power  and  authority  to  say  that 
fifty  cents  shall  go  for  a  dollar,  it  has  power  to  extinguish 
debts  altogether  and  to  say  that  nothing  shall  go  for  a 
dollar.” — Shedd,  II,  pp.  453. 

“The  principle  of  justice  surrendered  in  part  is  sur¬ 
rendered  altogether.” 

(c)  Christ’s  atonement  had  an  inherent  worth  that 
rendered  it  a  complete  satisfaction. 

(d)  Christ  being  a  person  of  infinite  worth  and  dig¬ 
nity  made  an  atonement  of  infinite  value,  and  therefore 
sufficient  for  all  time  and  all  men. 

Heb.  7:25.  Wherefore  he  is  able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost 
who  come  unto  God  by  him. 

6.  The  Atonement  is  propitiatory  and  reconciliatory. 

(a)  The  atonement  of  Christ  propitiates  God,  ren¬ 
ders  Him  favorable  or  gracious  and  reconciliation  is  effected 
between  God  and  man. 

(b)  The  question  arises  whether  God  is  reconciled 
to  man,  or  man  to  God;  whether  the  atonement  effects  a 
change  in  God  toward  man,  or  in  man  toward  God. 

(c)  The  Scriptural  teaching  bearing  on  this  point  is 
expressed  thus: 

Rom.  5:1.  Being  justified  by  faith  we  have  peace  with  God. 

Rom.  5:9.  Being  now  justified  in  his  blood  we  shall  be  saved 
from  wrath  through  him. 

II  Cor.  5:18.  God  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  through  Christ. 

II  Cor.  5:19.  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them. 

II  Cor.  5:20.  We  pray  you  in  Christ’s  stead,  be  ye  reconciled 
to  God. 

Col.  1:21.  And  you  who  were  once  alienated  and  enemies,  yet 
now  hath  he  reconciled. 

.<d>  The  obvious  meaning  is  that  the  atonement  pri¬ 
marily  affects  God’s  relation  to  the  sinner;  by  satisfying 
his  justice,  removing  his  just  displeasure  against  man  as 
a  sinner,  and  affording  the  basis  of  grace  and  pardon. 

The  evident  purpose  of  an  ancient  sacrifice  was  to 
appease  the  deity  to  which  it  was  offered;  and  Christ’s 
sacrifice  was  “to  save  from  wrath”  and  open  the  way  for 
reconciliation. 


254 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Ultimately  the  change  affects  man;  and  by  the  grace 
of  God  leads  to  a  subjective  change  in  him  by  which  he 
is  reconciled  to  God. 

This  is  directly  ascribed  to  the  atonement. 

In  brief,  the  atonement  expiates  sin,  propitiates  God, 
and  reconciles  first  God  to  man,  and  second  man  to  God. 

Summary  of  Section  V. 


1. 

The 

Atonement 

was  Sacrificial. 

2. 

u 

u 

“  Expiatory. 

3. 

u 

a 

“  Vicarious. 

4. 

a 

u 

“  Satisfaction  of  Justice  or  Law. 

5. 

u 

u 

“  Sufficient. 

6. 

u 

u 

Propitiatory  and  Reconcilia- 

tory. 


Section  VI.  Objections  to  the  Atonement. 

The  Atonement  is  receiving  a  fire  of  criticism  in  this 

day. 

It  is  one  of  the  doctrines  most  strenuously  attacked. 
A  certain  preacher  said  bluntly  in  a  recent  sermon:  “It  is 
nowhere  said  in  the  Scriptures  that  Christ  is  an  atonement 
for  sin.” 

While  the  word  “atonement”  is  not  directly  applied 
to  Christ,  yet  he  is  called  “the  lamb  of  God,”  “a  ransom,” 
“our  passover,”  etc.  He  is  shown  to  be  our  substitute, 
and  to  have  purged  our  sins,  and  to  have  reconciled  us 
to  God.  All  the  elements  included  in  the  work  of  atone¬ 
ment  are  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ. 

One  would  have  to  destroy  the  whole  Scriptures  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation  to  get  out  of  them  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement. 

A  few  of  the  objections  are  as  follows: 

1.  That  neither  guilt  nor  righteousness  can  be  trans¬ 
ferred  from  one  to  another. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  this  is  true  and  a  sense  in 
which  it  is  not  true.  Our  guilt  considered  as  moral  turpi¬ 
tude  and  pollution  of  nature  and  character  was  not  trans¬ 
ferred  to  Jesus  Christ;  but  guilt  in  the  sense  of  penalty 
or  liability  to  punishment  was  transferred. 


SOTERIOLOGY  255 

If  it  is  possible  for  one  man  to  pay  the  debt  of  another, 
or  become  a  substitute  for  another,  it  was  possible  for 
Christ  to  pay  our  debt  and  to  be  our  substitute. 

2.  That  it  represents  God  as  unmerciful,  cruel,  vin¬ 
dictive,  and  blood-thirsty  in  requiring  a  sacrifice  of  a  life 
to  appease  his  wrath. 

(a)  It  was  an  act  of  mercy  to  mankind  to  permit 
a  substitute. 

(b)  It  was  a  greater  act  of  mercy  that  God  not  only 
permitted  a  substitute  but  that  he  himself  provided  one, 
and  himself  became  that  substitute. 

(c)  Since  the  law  of  God  could  not  be  annulled  nor 
lowered  and  sin  could  not  go  unpunished,  God  himself  in 
the  person  of  his  Son  submitted  to  the  penalty  in  order 
to  set  man  free.  That  was  mercy  in  the  superlative.  God 
so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Only-begotten  Son. 

After  reading  Jno.  3:16  no  man  can  deny  God’s  mercy. 

3.  That  there  is  no  need  of  an  atonement. 

This  is  a  very  prevalent  objection  at  the  present  day. 

It  is  said  that  all  that  is  necessary  is  for  the  sinner 
to  repent  and  for  God  to  forgive  him  on  the  ground  of 
his  repentance. 

(a)  But  that  is  not  God’s  view  of  the  matter.  God 
has  taught  us  something  very  different  in  his  word.  From 
end  to  end  the  Bible  teaches  that  salvation  is  only  by  a 
vicarious  sacrifice. 

It  is  God’s  place  to  state  the  conditions  on  which  man 
may  be  saved.  It  is  man’s  business  to  accept  the  condi¬ 
tions  as  God  has  laid  them  down.  Man  is  not  yet  wiser 
than  God.  Since  God  has  provided  a  vicarious  sacrifice, 
it  is  not  for  man  to  say  there  is  no  need  of  it.  That  is 
inexcusable  presumption.  It  is  teaching  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men. 

(b)  If  man  should  repent  and  obey  perfectly  there¬ 
after,  that  would  be  but  his  duty  anyway  under  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  God’s  law;  but  could  not  atone  for  years  of 
transgression  before  repentance  occurred  and  obedience  be¬ 
gan.  The  law  that  has  been  broken  and  the  wrong  that 
has  been  done  require  atonement. 


256 


SOTERIOLOGY 


(c)  God  cannot  remit  sin  without  atonement  because 
he  has  threatened  to  punish  it,  and  his  veracity  is  at  stake. 
He  has  declared  that  the  wages  of  sin  is  death.  “The  day 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.”  “How  shall 
God  be  just  and  justify  the  ungodly?” 

Athanasius  answered  this  objection  in  his  day.  “Sup¬ 
pose,”  he  says,  “that  God  should  merely  require  repentance 
in  order  to  salvation.  This  would  not  be  improper  in  it¬ 
self  did  it  not  conflict  with  the  veracity  of  God.  God  can¬ 
not  be  untruthful  even  for  our  benefit.  Repentance  does 
not  satisfy  the  demands  of  truth  and  justice.  If  the  ques¬ 
tion  pertained  solely  to  the  corruption  of  sin,  and  not  to  the 
guilt  and  ill  desert  of  it,  repentance  might  be  sufficient.” 

One  could  wish  that  Athanasius  had  said  a  little  more 
on  this  line.  The  corruption  of  sin  is  only  one  side  of  it. 
Reformation  does  not  satisfy  the  whole  requirement  in  re¬ 
gard  to  it.  The  guilt  and  ill  desert  of  sin  is  the  other  side 
of  it.  God’s  perfect  law  and  God  as  a  perfect  governor 
cannot  ignore  either  aspect  of  sin.  In  his  provision  for 
man’s  salvation  God  has  had  due  regard  for  every  aspect 
of  sin  and  guilt.  To  ignore  the  guilt  and  deal  only  with 
the  pollution  of  sin  would  compromise  the  essential  at¬ 
tributes  of  God.  Moreover  if  repentance  alone  is  necessary, 
the  whole  incarnation  is  useless  and  Christ  has  come,  and 
died  without  sufficient  reason. 

(d)  Sin  cannot  be  pardoned  without  atonement  be¬ 
cause  God  is  the  moral  ruler  of  the  universe  and  cannot 
sacrifice  the  interests  of  moral  government.  Sin  is  not 
merely  a  private  matter.  It  concerns  the  government  of 
the  world.  Private  rights  may  be  relinquished  but  not 
public  welfare  nor  universal  laws.  The  objection,  if  true, 
would  lower  God’s  attribute  of  righteousness  and  destroy 
regard  for  all  law. 

(e)  The  atonement  best  displays  God’s  glory  and  con¬ 
serves  man’s  highest  good.  If  God  inexorably  demanded 
the  punishment  of  sin  and  refused  any  substitute  he  could 
not  display  his  mercy.  If  he  excused  sin  without  atone¬ 
ment  he  could  not  display  his  holiness  and  justice. 

If  either  of  these  attributes  were  obscured  in  man’s 
sight,  then  man  would  not  feel  constrained  to  be  better  than 
his  God. 

The  Atonement  vindicates  every  attribute  of  God  and 
reveals  his  nature  to  man  for  his  admiration  and  emulation. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


257 


4.  Another  objection  is  that  it  is  unjust  to  punish 
the  innocent  for  the  guilty.  This  objection,  as  most  of 
the  others,  proceeds  from  the  Unitarian  standpoint  in  mak¬ 
ing  an  absolute  distinction  between  the  offering  and  the 
offerer. 

If  God  had  laid  the  penalty  on  some  innocent  being 
without  his  consent,  that  would  have  been  injustice;  but 
if  God  himself  assumed  the  penalty  it  was  no  injustice  to 
man,  and  no  injustice  to  him  who  voluntarily  assumed  it; 
but  rather  the  expression  of  divine  and  infinite  love. 

5.  If  sin  is  punished  it  cannot  be  forgiven,  and  if 
forgiven  it  cannot  be  punished. 

This  objection  is  illustrated  thus:  “If  a  murderer  is 
pardoned  he  cannot  be  hanged,  and  if  hanged  he  cannot  be 
pardoned.” 

This  is  answered  thus :  “If  a  murderer  is  pardoned  the 
law  is  simply  set  aside  and  justice  not  exacted.  But  God’s 
mercy  and  justice  are  both  better  exhibited  in  the  substitute 
who  bears  the  penalty  and  secures  the  remission.”  The 
illustration  does  not  fit  the  case  because  in  God’s  govern¬ 
ment  mercy  and  justice  must  both  be  displayed. 

6.  Another  objection  is  that  Christ  could  not  suffer 
the  penalty  of  sin  without  enduring  remorse  and  eternal 
death. 

Christ’s  infinite  dignity  and  worth  gave  to  his  suf¬ 
ferings  an  infinite  value  which  was  full  legal  equivalent 
for  the  sins  of  a  race;  and  more  than  sufficient  for  all  the 
penalty  due  to  the  whole  race,  for  all  the  sufferings  of  the 
race  would  be  only  finite  at  most. 

7.  Atonement  leads  to  Anti-nomianism. 

That  means  that  if  Christ  satisfied  the  law  we  may 
be  negligent  of  it.  It  is  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  “faith 
without  works  is  dead.” 


Section  VII.  Theories  of  the  Atonement. 

1.  Patristic  Theories. 

(a)  Satan  conquered  mankind  and  made  them  his 
slaves. 

Christ  conquered  Satan  and  delivered  man  from  bon¬ 
dage. 


258 


SOrf  ERIOLOGrY 


(b)  Satan  conquered  Adam  and  enslaved  his  posterity. 

To  deliver  man  Christ  offered  himself  as  a  ransom  to 
Satan  and  Satan  accepted  the  offer  but  Christ  broke  the 
bonds  of  Satan  because  there  was  no  sinfulness  in  Christ 
by  which  Satan  could  hold  him. 

(c)  Satan’s  right  to  man  rested  on  man’s  sinfulness; 
but  when  Satan  accomplished  the  death  of  Christ  he  pre¬ 
sumed  on  rights  that  were  not  his  and  as  a  penalty  for¬ 
feited  his  claim  to  mankind. 

2.  The  Governmental  Theory. 

God  as  a  moral  governor  cannot  let  sin  go  unpunished. 
To  exhibit  his  hatred  of  sin  God  inflicted  its  punishment 
on  Jesus  Christ. 

It  was  designed  to  warn  the  impenitent  that  they  can¬ 
not  escape.  It  was  just  a  great  exhibition  of  God’s  dis¬ 
pleasure  against  sin.  The  Atonement  was  didactic.  It  was 
a  mere  symbol. 

Dorner  (volume  IV  page  121)  says:  “The  reason  why 
Christ  is  the  most  potent  symbol  of  atonement  is  because 
he  is  more  than  a  symbol,  because  in  him  the  atonement 
has  become  present  reality. 

Were  his  life  and  suffering  not  operative,  but  mere 
symbol,  they  could  then  scarcely  signify  what  this  theory 
supposes.  How  far  is  such  suffering,  supposed  to  be  a 
divinely  ordained  symbol,  from  suggesting  a  manifestation 
of  divine  love,  unless  such  divinely  inflicted  suffering  medi¬ 
ates  and  affects  forgiveness,  instead  of  merely  signifying 
or  promulgating  it.” 

3.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory. 

This  theory  denies  the  expiatory  and  vicarious  na¬ 
ture  of  Christ’s  work  and  assigns  its  value  to  the  moral 
effect  produced  by  Christ’s  teaching,  example,  and  manifes¬ 
tation  of  self-sacrificing  love. 

According  to  this  theory  Christ  is  not  an  expiatory 
sacrifice,  not  a  substitute  for  man,  paid  no  penalty,  made 
no  satisfaction  to  justice.  But  he  is  a  teacher,  an  example, 
and  a  manifestation  of  divine  love.  He  saves  not  by  his 
death  but  by  his  life.  He  produces  a  moral  effect  thereby 
on  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men, — hence  the  designation 
“Moral  Influence  theory.”  This  view  was  taught  by  Horace 
Bushnell  in  his  “Vicarious  Sacrifice,”  by  W.  Newton  Clarke, 


SOTERIOLOGY 


259 


“An  Outline  of  Christian  Theology,”  pp.  337 — 358.  It 
characterizes  generally  the  systems  known  as  ‘  ‘  New 
Theology.” 

4.  The  Pantheistic  View  of  the  Atonement. 

Man  is  the  highest  form  of  God,  but  at  first  he  does  not 
know  it.  He  is  thus  at  variance  with  his  own  true  nature. 
When  he  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  his  unity  with  God, 
this  variance  is  taken  away.  This  is  called  reconciliation. 
He  now  knows  himself  to  be  one  with  God.  This  is  atone¬ 
ment  on  its  subjective  side. 

But  what  has  Christ  to  do  with  this  ?  What  part 
does  he  play  in  effecting  the  atonement?  This  the  ques¬ 
tion  on  the  objective  side. 

Christ’s  place  in  this  view  was  this:  Christ  most  of 
all  men  realized  his  God-oneness.  In  him  the  God-con¬ 
sciousness  was  perfect.  This  was  his  gospel.  By  his 
teaching,  his  example,  and  his  own  perfect  realization  of 
God-oneness  he  leads  others  into  that  realization  for  them¬ 
selves.  This  is  how  he  effects  the  atonement. 

Schleiermacher,  perhaps  not  so  radical  a  pantheist  as 
some  others,  enlarges  on  this  view. 

According  to  him  Christ  bore  our  sins  in  this  way: — 
Christ  saw  deeply  into  the  nature  of  sin;  observed  its 
prevalence;  and  the  misery  and  ruin  it  caused.  This  op¬ 
pressed  him  and  wore  on  his  spirit,  so  that  he  suffered 
with  the  suffering  world,  and  bore  the  burden  of  the  world’s 
sin. 

This  suffering  of  the  world  stirred  Christ’s  sympathy 
in  the  most  powerful  way.  His  sympathy  goes  out  to  man 
and  leads  him  into  painful  struggle  for  human  betterment. 
This  is  Christ’s  active  work  in  atonement. 

That  sympathy  draws  us  into  fellowship  with  him  by 
faith  in  him,  to  the  effect  of  our  greater  holiness  and 
blessedness.  This  is  the  subjective  result  in  this  process 
of  atonement. 

The  effect  on  God  is  that  God  sees  us  in  this  union 
with  Christ,  and  is  well  pleased,  and  determines  to  let 
salvation  flow  to  us  through  Christ’s  mediation,  and  for 
his  sake. 

Thus  Christ  becomes  our  substitute. 

See  Dorner,  IV  pp.  49 — 53,  for  more  extensive  state¬ 
ment. 


260 


SOTERIOLOGY 


5.  Remarks. 

In  all  these  theories  there  is  some  truth  but  all  are 
defective  and  incomplete.  We  must  recognize  the  truth 
and  reject  the  error. 

The  Patristic  theories  rightly  hold  to  deliverance  from 
the  power  of  Satan,  but  fail  to  express  the  other  important 
features  of  the  atonement. 

The  Governmental  theory  is  right  in  saying  that  the 
atonement  teaches  God’s  displeasure  with  sin,  but  that  is 
only  one  point  in  many. 

The  Moral  theory  stresses  the  subjective  effect  of  the 
atonement  on  the  individual,  while  denying  the  main  ob¬ 
jective  facts. 

The  Pantheistic  view  ignores  entirely  every  objective 
and  historical  fact,  except  perhaps  the  exalted  character 
of  Christ. 

Schleiermacher’s  brand  of  it  writes  the  atonement  in 
the  terms  of  experience  with  little  regard  for  the  Biblical 
record  or  any  external  authority. 

The  complete  answer  to  all  these  theories  is  the  exhi¬ 
bition  of  the  true  nature  of  the  atonement  as  taught  in 
the  Scriptures. 

All  theories  of  the  atonement  are  efforts  in  the  right 
direction,  viz.  to  understand  and  express  its  meaning;  but 
quite  likely  any  or  all  of  them  fall  short  of  a  perfect  ex¬ 
pression.  It  takes  the  whole  Bible  to  explain  the  atone¬ 
ment.  Our  widest  conceptions  may  touch  only  the  fringe 
of  its  meaning.  The  atonement  in  its  height  and  depth 
and  length  and  breadth  is  beyond  our  mental  and  spiritual 
limitations.  Before  the  cross  of  Calvary  the  world  has 
paused,  and  gazed,  and  wept,  and  worshipped,  in  adoring 
wonder;  and  well  it  may. 

However  the  Scriptures  plainly  show  certain  features 
of  the  atonement  which  have  been  set  forth  above.  These, 
for  convenience,  are  sometimes  called  the  satisfaction 
theory,  or  vicarious  theory;  though  we  may  question  the 
propriety  of  the  term  ‘Theory.”  Expiation,  substitution, 
etc.  are  rather  FACTS  of  the  atonement  than  a  theory. 
Strictly  the  theory  pertains  to  the  questions :  how  the  atone¬ 
ment  expiates  sin;  how  it  made  satisfaction;  to  what  was 
the  satisfaction  made;  and  how  did  it  affect  man? 


SOTERIOLOGY 


261 


The  early  fathers  said  it  ransomed  man  from  Satan. 
The  governmental  theory  said  it  was  purely  didactic,  and 
its  effect  was  educational.  The  moral  influence  theory  says 
it  was  a  stimulating  example.  Anselm  said  it  satisfied 
God’s  honor.  The  Reformers  that  it  satisfied  the  justice 
of  God  or  the  law  of  God. 

In  recognizing  the  truth  in  the  satisfaction  of  the  di¬ 
vine  nature  in  the  atonement,  we  must  avoid  postulating 
an  antagonism  between  any  two  or  more  of  the  divine 
attributes,  as  if  God’s  justice  and  holiness  were  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  his  mercy  and  love,  or  that  one  set  of  attributes 
were  satisfied  at  the  expense  of  the  other.  God’s  nature 
is  an  undisturbed  unity;  his  attributes  are  not  independent 
of  each  other  any  more  than  the  faculties  of  the  human 
soul.  There  is  love  in  his  justice  and  justice  in  his  love. 
The  whole  divine  being  expresses  himself  in  the  exercise 
of  any  attribute  as  the  whole  man  does  in  thinking,  feel¬ 
ing  and  volition. 

The  atonement  is  a  satisfaction  to  God’s  love  as  well 
as  to  his  justice.  The  transaction  is  the  harmonius  blend¬ 
ing  of  all  sides  of  the  divine  nature  in  united  exercise. 

When  vicarious  atonement  is  illustrated,  as  some  mod¬ 
ern  preachers  have  done,  by  Livingstone  giving  his  life  to 
Africa,  or  Damien  giving  his  life  to  the  lepers,  or  Florence 
Nightingale  serving  the  wounded,  or  the  mother  bearing 
the  cares  and  toils  of  the  home,  the  illustration  is  in  fact 
not  quite  pertinent.  These  are  indeed  beautiful  examples 
of  sacrificial  devotion,  but  not,  in  reality,  of  substitution. 
What  is  done  in  behalf  of  others  may  not  be  done  instead 
of  others.  A  vicarious  atonement  is,  and  must  be,  a  sub¬ 
stitutionary  atonement. 


Section  VIII.  The  Vicarious  versus  the  Moral  View. 

As  has  been  shown,  the  Scriptures  teach  a  sacrificial, 
vicarious,  expiatory,  objective  atonement.  The  only  theory 
which,  in  this  age,  is  a  rival  or  opponent  of  this  is  the 
Moral  View. 

In  addition  to  the  proof  already  given,  another  line 
of  argument  shows  the  truth  of  the  Vicarious  View  and 
the  impossibility  of  fitting  the  Moral  View  to  the  teachings 
of  the  Scriptures. 


262 


SOTERIOLOGY 


The  proof  of  an  objective,  sacrificial,  vicarious  atone¬ 
ment  is  not  confined  merely  to  a  strict  interpretation  of 
bare  proof-texts,  valuable  as  they  are ;  but  in  several 
epistles  the  whole  argument,  in  its  subject,  course,  and 
peculiar  turns,  depends  for  its  intelligibility  on  the  under¬ 
lying  conception  of  an  objective,  vicarious  atonement. 

1.  Argument  from  the  epistle  of  James.* 

The  epistle  of  James  condemns  anti-nomianism.  Let 
us  ask  on  what  view  of  the  atonement  would  anti-nomian¬ 
ism  arise  in  the  Christian  church.  Plainly  on  the  ground 
of  a  vicarious  atonement.  It  is  perfectly  conceivable  how 
a  man  might  excuse  his  own  derelictions  on  the  ground 
of  a  substituted  righteousness;  and  hence  anti-nomianism 
would  result. 

But  such  a  situation  would  be  impossible  on  the  ground 
of  the  Moral  Theory.  Whatever  virtues  the  Moral  Theory 
lacks  it  certainly  possesses  the  virtue  of  making  antinom- 
ianism  impossible.  If  men  are  justified  on  the  ground  of 
subjective  character  and  not  by  an  imputed  righteousness, 
anti-nomianism  could  find  no  ground  on  which  to  stand. 

But  anti-nomianism  did  appear  in  the  early  church, 
and  men  assumed  that  they  could  be  justified  by  faith  with¬ 
out  works.  James  was  obliged  to  resist  the  error  and  to 
declare  that  faith  without  works  is  dead. 

But  all  this  shows  that  the  vicarious  nature  of  the 
atonement  had  been  taught  in  the  early  church  by  the 
Apostles.  Such  a  view,  good  and  true  as  it  is,  would  be 
open  to  just  this  misconception  by  the  errorists,  as  the 
Moral  Theory  would  not.  Thus  by  the  errors  that  arose 
and  the  arguments  used  against  them  we  may  discover 
what  truth  lay  beneath. 

2.  Argument  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  Paul  states  the  funda¬ 
mental  conception  of  Christianity.  He  begins  by  showing 
the  guilt  of  all  mankind.  And  that  the  guilt  of  men  ex¬ 
poses  them  to  the  wrath  and  judgments  of  God.  “For  the 
wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungod¬ 
liness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  who  hold  the  truth  in 


*The  writer  is  indebted  to  R.  W.  Dale  for  much  of  the  material 
embraced  in  paragraphs  1,  2,  and  3,  comprising  the  argument  from 
the  epistles. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


263 


unrighteousness” — 1:18.  He  brings  in  the  whole  world  as 
guilty  before  God,  and  proves  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  that 
they  are  all  under  sin.  “There  is  none  righteous,  no  not 
one,”  “All  the  world  is  guilty  before  God”  and  “by  the 
deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified.” 

How  then?  “Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through 
the  REDEMPTION  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God 
hath  set  forth  to  be  a  PROPITIATION  through  faith  in 
his  blood  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of 
sins  that  are  past.” 

From  the  doom  and  danger  of  God’s  wrath  against  sin 
and  against  us  as  sinners  we  are  delivered  by  the  propitia¬ 
tion  made  by  the  blood  and  therefore  thus  being  delivered 
we  have  peace,  not  merely  and  primarily  subjective  peace; 
but  the  line  of  logic  is  that  the  danger  from  God’s  wrath 
has  passed  away,  and  he  is  at  peace  with  us;  “for  being- 
now  justified  by  his  blood  we  are  saved  from  wrath  through 
him;”  for  when  we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to 
God  by  the  death  of  his  Son.” 

What  are  the  steps  here? 

First,  A  guilty  world. 

Second,  The  wrath  of  God  against  all  sin  and  sinners. 

Third,  Propitiation  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Fourth,  Deliverance  from  condemnation  and  peace  with 

God. 

Does  this  line  of  argument  indicate  that  Paul  believed 
in  a  sacrificial  and  vicarious  atonement,  or  in  the  view 
known  as  the  Moral  Theory?  Would  this  have  been  Paul’s 
argument  if  he  had  believed  in  the  Moral  Theory?  Cer¬ 
tainly  not. 

If  Paul  had  held  to  the  theory  in  question  his  argument 
would  have  run  thus : 

First.  A  world  morally  weak  rather  than  guilty. 

Second.  A  God  of  pity  and  love;  but  no  mention  of 
wrath  against  sinners. 

Third.  An  inspiring  example  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ;  but  no  propitiation  by  blood. 

Fourth.  A  justification  by  man’s  own  works  and  char¬ 
acter  excited  by  the  example  of  Christ. 

But  that  is  not  Paul’s  argument.  The  whole  argu¬ 
ment  of  Paul  and  the  first  half  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans 
would  be  unintelligible  on  the  ground  of  the  Moral  Theory. 


264 


SOTERIOLOGY 


The  case  is  strengthened  greatly  when  we  further  con¬ 
sider  the  slander  of  Paul’s  enemies.  The  objection  which 
the  enemies  make  reveals  explicitly  the  view  which  Paul 
proclaimed. 

As  we  be  slanderously  reported,  and  as  some  affirm  that  we  say, 
Let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  whose  damnation  is  just.  3:18. 

Paul  again  refers  to  the  charge  in  6:1.  What  shall  we  say  then? 
Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound? 

Paul  had  been  accused  of  preaching  a  gospel  that  did 
not  require  a  man  to  cease  from  sin;  that  is,  an  objective 
and  not  a  subjective  salvation.  Paul’s  doctrine  was  open 
to  this  misconception.  How  easily  the  enemies  could  make 
this  charge  against  a  justification  based  on  a  vicarious 
atonement!  They  were  quick  to  make  the  thrust. 

But  against  a  Moral  Theory  of  atonement,  against  a 
subjective  justification  no  such  charge  would  have  been 
made. 

From  such  a  standpoint  it  would  be  utterly  irrelevant 
to  raise  the  question:  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace 
may  abound  ? 

“Some  affirm  that  we  say:  ‘Let  us  do  evil  that  good 
may  come.’  ”  The  charge  was  a  slander;  but  if  Paul  had 
represented  the  work  of  Christ,  not  as  a  sacrificial  and 
vicarious  one,  but  as  an  inspiring  example,  luring  men  and 
exciting  them  to  loftiness  and  holiness  of  life  the  slander 
would  have  been  impossible. 

The  objection  of  Paul’s  enemies  shows  what  he  taught, 
viz.  a  vicarious  atonement.  And  furthermore  it  is  beyond 
dispute  that  Paul’s  whole  argument  would  be  meaningless 
on  the  basis  of  the  Moral  Theory. 

3.  Argument  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

The  epistle  to  the  Galatians  reveals  the  fact  that  the 
Judaizers  had  tempted  these  unstable  Christians  to  re¬ 
vert  to  the  law  as  a  requisite  to  salvation.  Paul  in  this 
epistle  endeavors  to  show  how  irrational  it  was  for  the 
Gentiles  to  have  recourse  to  the  Jewish  law  that  could 
not  save  the  Jews  themselves. 

The  law  instead  of  saving  condemned  all  who  trans¬ 
gressed. 

Gal.  3:10.  Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all 
things  that  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them. 

The  law  subjected  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike  to  a  curse. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


265 


But  a  promise  had  been  given  to  Abraham  that  in  him 
all  nations  should  be  blessed,  Gal.  3:8. 

How  then  shall  the  promises  to  Abraham  be  fulfilled? 
How  shall  they  be  blessed  whom  the  law  curses? 

This  question  the  Jew  must  face  as  well  as  the  Gentile. 

How  does  Paul  answer  that  question? 

Here  Paul  brings  in  the  death  of  Christ. 

Gal.  3:13.  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
being  made  a  curse  for  us. 

Gal.  3:14.  That  the  Blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ. 

Paul's  argument  is  this:  The  law  pronounces  a  curse 
on  every  man,  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike.  Christ  has  canceled 
that  curse  for  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  who  believe  on  him. 
How  foolish  for  the  Gentile  to  put  himself  under  the  law 
that  cursed  him,  in  lieu  of  the  redemption  that  Christ 
achieved  by  canceling  that  curse! 

Now  ask:  Would  this  have  been  Paul's  argument  if 
he  had  not  believed  in  an  objective  atonement? 

Can  we  remove  from  this  passage  the  idea  that  Christ 
endured  the  penalty  or  the  curse  of  the  law?  If  Christ 
bore  no  penalty  in  his  sacrifice  on  the  cross  what  becomes 
of  Paul's  argument  in  Galatians  ? 

If  Paul  had  held  the  modern  Moral  Theory  he  certainly 
would  have  encouraged  the  Galatians  to  repudiate  all  faith 
in  a  vicarious  enduring  of  the  curse  and  trust  for  justifica¬ 
tion  to  obedience  to  the  law.  But  all  Paul’s  argument  and 
appeal  is  based  on  the  fact  of  Christ's  enduring  the  curse 
and  redeeming  man  therefrom. 

In  addition  to  the  proof  based  upon  the  epistles  we 
continue  the  argument  with  the  following  considerations. 

4.  All  the  virtues  claimed  by  the  Moral  Influence 
are  included  in  the  orthodox  doctrine,  and  more. 

The  love  of  God  is  as  much  manifest  in  sending  his 
Son  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  as  it  would  be  if  Christ  were 
only  a  heroic  and  inspiring  example. 

The  moral  effect  on  the  hearts  of  men  in  inciting  them 
to  faith  and  emulation  is  just  as  great  on  the  orthodox 
view  as  on  the  other. 

Every  advantage  and  value  that  the  Moral  Influence 
advocates  can  claim  are  duplicated  in  the  expiatory  view, 
and  far  more. 


266 


SOTERIOLOGY 


5.  The  Moral  Influence  doctrine  is  efficacious  only 
where  it  is  known  and  understood.  It  could  have  no  pos¬ 
sible  relevancy  to  infants,  incapables  and  heathen.  It  is 
only  available  to  those  who  understand  it.  It  is  therefore 
limited  in  its  application,  and  is  frequently  coupled  with  a 
doctrine  of  second  probation  to  supplement  its  deficiencies. 

6.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory  substitutes  one  effect 
of  the  atonement  for  the  atonement  itself.  The  end  to 
be  attained  is  the  remission  of  sin  and  the  eventual  sancti¬ 
fication  of  the  believer;  but  to  the  question,  how  this  is 
to  be  effected,  the  answer  is,  by  the  atonement  in  its  mak¬ 
ing  and  its  application.  The  result  is  one  thing,  the  cause 
another  thing. 

7.  Horace  Bushnell  in  his  “Vicarious  Sacrifice,”  has 
made  himself  the  most  illustrious  advocate  of  the  Moral 
Influence  Theory  in  America.  But  in  a  subsequent  work, 
“Forgiveness  and  Law,”  he  modifies  considerably  his  for¬ 
mer  position,  and  admits  much  that  he  had  previously 
denied. 

It  is  also  stated  on  respectable  authority  that  Dr.  Bush¬ 
nell  confessed  on  his  dying  bed:  “I  fear  what  I  have  writ¬ 
ten  and  said  upon  the  moral  idea  of  the  atonement  is  mis¬ 
leading  and  will  do  much  harm.”  And  further,  that  he 
exclaimed  in  view  of  death:  “0  Lord  Jesus,  I  trust  for 
mercy  only  in  the  shed  blood  that  thou  didst  offer  on  Cal¬ 
vary.” 


8.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory  gives  no  sufficient  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Old  Testament,  nor 
of  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  referring  to  the 
death  of  Christ. 

9.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory  is  a  theory  of  subjec¬ 
tive  atonement;  but  the  whole  value  of  it  must  rest  upon 
the  objective  facts  of  Christ’s  historical  work.  Take  away 
the  objective  facts  of  the  atonement  and  the  subjective 
value  goes  also.  All  the  value  that  a  subjective  atonement 
has  is  due  to  the  objective  reality. 

10.  The  convictions  of  the  universal  human  mind  con¬ 
clude  that  God’s  will  is  identical  with  the  eternal  law  of 
righteousness,  and  that  righteousness  must  be  expressed 
in  the  divine  acts.  God’s  nature  and  man’s  nature  as  well 
declare  that  sin  deserves  punishment.  God  must  punish 


SOTERIOLOGY 


267 


sin,  or  God  and  the  law  of  righteousness  are  at  odds,  and 
the  whole  moral  universe  in  chaos.  If  God  does  not  assert 
his  righteousness  by  punishing  sin  in  the  offender  he  must 
assert  it  in  some  way  that  will  vindicate  his  holy  nature 
in  the  eyes  of  the  moral  universe. 

In  the  atonement  God  mercifully  spares  the  offender 
and  at  the  same  time  vindicates  and  manifests  his  righte¬ 
ousness  in  a  far  more  glorious  manner  than  the  punishment 
of  the  offender  could  have  done. 

The  sacrificial  and  expiatory  nature  of  the  atonement 
is  demanded  by  the  nature  of  God  and  the  eternal  law 
of  righteousness. 

11.  Argument  from  Conscience. 

Conscience  forebodes  the  punishment  of  sin ;  not  merely 
in  this  life  but  in  that  beyond  the  grave.  “For  in  that 
sleep  of  death  what  dreams  may  come.”  Even  when  the 
love  of  sin  gives  place  to  hate,  that  foreboding  still  persists. 
Remember  Judas'  remorse  and  Lady  Macbeth's  vain  use  of 
water.  “Out  damned  spot;''  but  the  spot  could  not  be 
wished  nor  willed  away. 

Only  an  actual  satisfaction  can  remove  the  sense  of 
guilt  and  the  foreboding  of  conscience.  Mere  repentance 
and  reformation  are  not  sufficient.  The  obligation  to  sat¬ 
isfy  a  violated  law  can  only  be  lifted  when  the  law  has 
been  actually  satisfied.  Frequently  murderers  desire  to 
suffer  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law  in  hope  of  making 
some  atonement  for  their  sin; — a  testimony  to  the  de¬ 
mands  of  conscience. 

The  only  real  basis  for  peace  of  conscience  is  satis¬ 
faction.  All  man-made  satisfaction  to  the  law  of  God  is 
imperfect;  but  a  God-made  satisfaction  is  certain  to  satisfy 
a  divine  law.  The  conscience  can  rest  secure  only  in  a 
God-made  satisfaction.  A  clear  conception  of  the  demands 
of  conscience  shows  the  necessity  of  an  objective  atonement. 
Besides,  the  innate  desire  for  one's  own  well-being  might 
well  constrain  a  man  to  choose  the  satisfaction  of  a  divine 
Saviour  rather  than  to  rest  on  the  imperfect  merits  of  a 
checkered  life. 

James  Freeman  Clarke,  a  Unitarian  dyed  in  the  wool, 
with  no  semblance  of  sympathy  with  orthodoxy,  has  made 
a  scientific  analysis  of  conscience  and  showed  that  it  de¬ 
mands  reparation  to  the  injured  party,  punishment  to  the 
offender,  and  satisfaction  to  the  law  of  right. 


268 


SOTERIOLOGY 


This  ought  to  have  convinced  himself  of  the  orthodox 
view  of  the  atonement;  and  might  have  done  so,  but  for 
his  fallacious  postulate  that  what  is  true  with  us,  is  not 
true  with  God. 


Section  IX.  Eternal  Atonement. 

Is  the  atonement  merely  historical,  or  does  it  express 
eternal  relations?  Is  it  something  wrought  out  in  a  few 
brief  years  and  culminating  in  a  few  brief  hours  some 
nineteen  hundred  years  ago?  Is  the  whole  idea  of  the 
atonement  comprised  in  that  fulfilling  of  precept  and  bear¬ 
ing  of  penalty  effected  in  Christ's  incarnation,  obedience 
and  death?  Or  is  the  atonement  as  eternal  as  the  attri¬ 
butes  of  the  Godhead,  and  based  upon  an  essential,  or  sub¬ 
stantial,  or  causal  relation  of  the  Deity  to  the  human  race? 

1.  Dr.  Roswell  D.  Hitchcock  left  a  volume  of  ser¬ 
mons  entitled  “Eternal  Atonement.”  In  them  he  states 
his  view  of  eternal  atonement  in  these  words:  “His  agony 
over  sin  is  eternal.  This  agony  of  God  over  human  sin  is 
‘the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.'  God 
himself  atones;  to  himself  atones;  and  so  atonement  is 
both  eternal  and  divine.” 

“This  I  may  believe  and  this  I  must  believe,  that  the 
atonement  in  which  I  cast  the  anchor  of  my  hope  is  not 
temporal  but  eternal.  God  within  himself,  inflicted  that 
upon  himself,  and  suffered  that  from  himself,  into  which 
angels  have  never  looked,  and  never  can.” 

A  much  more  advanced  position  is  taken  by  other 
theologians. 

2.  R.  W.  Dale,  in  his  book  “The  Atonement,”  Lecture 
X,  assumes  that  if  the  sacrificial  and  vicarious  view  of  the 
atonement  can  be  shown  to  rest  upon  the  original  relation 
of  Christ  to  the  human  race,  it  will  have  a  more  secure 
foundation,  and  in  fact  without  such  basis  it  may  be  difficult 
to  maintain  the  doctrine. 

This  particular  view  of  the  atonement  has  not  been 
generally  apprehended  by  the  church,  and  is  not  altogether 
easy  of  comprehension.  Whether  it  is  more  scriptural  or 
more  speculative,  its  advocates  seek,  at  least,  to  anchor  it 
to  revelation. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


269 


Certain  Scriptural  expressions  are  laid  as  a  basis. 

Jno.  1:2,  3.  All  things  were  made  by,  or  through,  him  and 
without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.  In  him  was 
life  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men. 

Heb.  1:2,  3.  By,  or  through,  whom  he  made  the  worlds,  who 
being  the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  person, 
and  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  etc. 

Col.  1:15,  17.  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
firstborn  of  every  creature,  or  all  creation;  for  by,  or  in,  him  were 
all  things  created — in  heaven — and  in  earth, — and  by  him  all  things 
consist,  or  hold  together. 

In  these  passages  we  have  the  Logos  as  creator  and 
upholder,  or  the  agency  through  which  the  divine  power 
exerts  its  causal  efficiency. 

“The  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  all 
creation”  suggests  that  the  Logos  has  a  dual  function  in 
the  relationship  of  Deity  to  the  creation,  that  he  stands 
officially  between  the  two;  that  as  in  time  he  represents 
the  perfection  of  the  Godhead  to  the  creature,  so  from 
eternity  he  represents  to  God  the  ideal  perfection  of  all 
created  things.  In  other  words  Christ,  as  “the  firstborn 
of  every  creature,”  is  the  prophecy  of  creation,  and,  as 
“the  image  of  the  invisible  God”,  he  functions  the  per¬ 
fections  of  the  Deity  to  the  intelligent  universe. 

From  this  dual  function  in  the  divine  economy  it  is 
inferred  that  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  the  Godhead  and 
the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  the  universe,  if  not  of  the  same 
nature,  are  at  least  equally  vital. 

A  vital  relation  between  Christ  and  the  human  race 
thus  becomes  the  basis  of  the  atonement.  This  vital  re¬ 
lation  is  supported  by  such  expressions  as: — “In  him  was 
life,” — the  life  of  the  human  race, — “and  the  life  was  the 
light  of  men,” — that  we  died  in  him,  that  we  are  risen  in 
him, — “abide  in  me,” — “apart  from  me  ye  can  do  nothing,” 
— “Christ  liveth  in  me,” — the  church  is  the  “body  of 
Christ,” — and  “the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all.” 

In  this  view  Christ  is  regarded  as  a  representative  in 
the  usual  sense,  not  a  representative  by  imputation,  nor 
by  a  legal  relation  assumed  for  an  exigency;  but  by  virtue 
of  a  real  union  between  the  life  of  Christ  and  the  life  of 
the  race. 

Christ  is  regarded  as  the  ground  and  root  of  the  uni¬ 
verse,  and  apart  from  him  it  could  not  continue  to  exist. 


270 


SOTERIOLOGY 


And  as  head  of  the  human  race  it  is  said:  “Christ  is,  in 
very  truth,  by  the  original  law  of  the  universe,  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  mankind.” 

On  this  original  and  vital  relation  the  atonement  is 
founded.  He  is  the  life  of  humanity.  He  brings  the  race 
into  the  same  relation  to  the  Father  that  he  himself  en¬ 
joys.  And  this  original  relationship  constitutes  the  reason 
why  he  should  become  a  sacrifice  and  propitiation  for  man¬ 
kind.  He  is  not  a  mere  substitute  by  “Legal  fiction,”  but 
represents  the  race  because  he  is  the  life  of  the  race. 

Accordingly,  if  Christ  must  always  represent  the  ideal 
relation  of  man  to  God,  then,  when  sin  came  into  the  race, 
he  could  only  continue  to  express  such  a  relation  by  bear¬ 
ing  the  penalty  which  sin  deserved.  Hence  the  death  of 
Christ  restores  the  actual  representation  and  we  are  per¬ 
mitted  to  retain  or  recover  our  original  and  ideal  relation 
to  God  through  him.  So  it  may  be  said  that  what  Christ 
did  to  restore  this  relation  is  the  ground  on  which  man’s 
sins  are  remitted. 

3.  A.  H.  Strong,  in  his  Dogmatic  Theology,  presents 
a  view  similar  to  that  of  Dr.  Dale,  though  somewhat  more 
advanced. 

Dr.  Strong’s  fundamental  position  is  that  Christ  as 
immanent  God  is  the  life  of  humanity,  and  therefore  re¬ 
sponsible  for  human  sin,  and  under  obligation  to  suffer  its 
penalty  in  the  redemption  of  the  race. 

The  pivot  of  the  whole  position  is  the  union  of  Christ 
with  the  race,  not  in  the  assumption  of  humanity  in  the 
incarnation,  but  in  his  original  relation  to  the  race. 

It  is  one  thing  to  rest  the  responsibility  and  obliga¬ 
tion  of  the  incarnate  Logos,  for  the  expiation  of  sin,  on 
his  union  with  the  race  in  the  incarnation;  it  is  another 
thing  to  rest  that  responsibility  and  obligation  on  a  vital 
organic  union  with  the  race  in  its  creation.  This  point 
needs  to  be  kept  clearly  in  mind. 

The  following  quotations  will  set  forth  the  position: 

“Christ,  as  the  Logos,  as  the  immanent  God,  is  the  life 
of  humanity,  laden  with  responsibility  for  human  sin,  while 
yet  he  personally  knows  no  sin.  Of  this  race-responsibility, 
and  race-guilt  which  Christ  assumed  and  for  which  he  suf¬ 
fered,  so  soon  as  man  had  sinned,  Christ’s  obedience  and 
suffering  in  the  flesh  were  the  visible  reflection  and  reve- 


SOTERIOLOGY 


271 


lation.  Only  in  Christ’s  organic  union  with  the  race  can 
we  find  the  vital  relation  which  will  make  his  vicarious 
sufferings  either  possible  or  just.” — Dogmatic  Theology, 
page  754. 

“If  Christ’s  union  with  the  race  be  one  which  begins 
with  creation,  and  antedates  the  fall, — substitution,  repre¬ 
sentation,  propitiation,  reconciliation,  satisfaction  are  only 
different  aspects  of  the  work  which  Christ  does  for  us, 
by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  he  is  the  immanent  God,  the 
life  of  humanity,  priest  and  victim,  condemning  and  con¬ 
demned,  atoning  and  atoned.” — Ibid,  page  755. 

“The  solution  of  the  problem  (how  Christ  can  justly 
make  satisfaction)  lies  in  Christ’s  union  with  humanity. 
The  first  result  of  that  union  is  obligation  to  suffer  for 
man,  since  being  one  with  the  race,  Christ  had  a  share  in 
the  responsibility  of  the  race  to  the  law  and  justice  of 
God.  Christ’s  sharing  of  man’s  life  justly  and  inevitably 
subjected  him  to  man’s  exposures  and  liabilities,  and  espe¬ 
cially  to  God’s  condemnation  on  account  of  sin.  As  the  im¬ 
manent  God  he  was  the  life  of  the  race  and  of  every  member 
of  it.” — Ibid,  page  775. 

Dr.  Strong  quotes  A.  J.  F.  Behrends,  apparently  with 
approval,  as  follows:  “He  is  our  representative,  not  be¬ 
cause  he  was  in  the  loins  of  Adam;  but  because  we,  Adam 
included,  were  in  his  loins.  Personal  created  existence  is 
grounded  in  the  Logos,  so  that  God  must  deal  with  him, 
as  well  as  with  every  individual  sinner;  and  sin  and  guilt 
and  punishment  must  smite  the  Logos  as  well  as  the  sin¬ 
ner  and  that  whether  the  sinner  is  saved  or  not.” 

“Christ’s  union  with  the  race  in  the  incarnation  is 
only  the  outward  and  visible  expression  of  a  prior  union 
with  the  race  which  began  when  he  created  the  race.  As 
‘in  him  were  all  things  created,’  and  as  ‘in  him  all  things 
consist,’  or  hold  together,  it  follows  that  he  who  is  the  life 
of  humanity,  must  though  personally  pure,  be  involved 
in  responsibility  for  all  human  sin  and  ‘it  was  necessary 
that  the  Christ  should  suffer.” — Ibid,  page  758. 

“The  imputation  of  our  sins  to  him  is  the  result  of 
his  natural  union  with  us.” — Ibid,  page  716. 

“Original  grace  like  original  sin  is  only  the  ethical  in¬ 
terpretation  of  biological  facts.”— Ibid,  page  768. 


272 


SOTERIOLOGY 


4.  The  discussion  of  this  subject  involves  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of: 

Col.  1:15.  The  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of 
every  creature,  or  all  creation. 

It  is  said  that  Christ  as  the  image  of  God  represents 
the  perfection  of  God  to  the  creature;  and  as  the  first¬ 
born  of  every  creature  he  represents  the  ideal  perfection 
of  the  created  universe  to  God. 

In  this  way  a  representative  function  or  office  is  estab¬ 
lished  of  the  Logos  between  the  Godhead  and  the  uni¬ 
verse;  and  in  this  representative  capacity  Christ  becomes 
responsible  for  sin  and  atonement. 

A  full  discussion  of  this  passage  would  lead  us  too 
far  afield.  But  observe  that  the  clause  “firstborn  of  every 
creature”  does  not  identify  Christ  with  the  creation;  for 
the  preceding  clause  asserts  his  divinity  and  the  following 
verse  declares  him  to  be  creator  of  all  things. 

He  cannot  be  creator  and  creature  too. 

The  genitive  “of  every  creature”  is  not  a  partitive 
genitive  but  a  genitive  of  comparison;  not  as  regards  time, 
as  Meyer  says,  but  as  regards  rank.  This  is  a  point  to 
be  held  fast. 

The  purpose  of  the  passage  is  not  to  bring  Christ  down 
into  any  similarity  to  the  creature,  but  the  very  reverse; 
in  opposition  to  incipient  Gnosticism,  to  exalt  him  above  all 
comparison. 

He  is  called  prototokos,  firstborn,  but  the  creation  is 
called  ktisis,  marking  the  distinction  by  the  terms  em¬ 
ployed. 

Elsewhere  he  is  called  “firstborn  from  the  dead,”  not 
to  class  him  as  one  of  the  dead,  but  to  show  that  resur¬ 
rection  has  its  hope  and  cause  in  him.  He  is  called  “first¬ 
born  among  many  brethren,”  not  to  make  him  one  of  many, 
but  to  point  out  his  higher  rank. 

Some  of  the  fathers  understood  prototokos  to  refer 
to  his  eternal  generation.  This  may  be  doubtful,  since  the 
New  Testament  usage  of  the  word  does  not  refer  to  beget¬ 
ting  but  to  bringing  forth. 

Meyer  insists  that  the  passage  refers  to  Christ  not  as 
he  was  but  as  he  is  in  his  glorified  state.  In  either  case 
it  marks  the  distance  and  difference  between  Christ  and 
all  things  created,  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Taking  the 


SOTERIOLOGY 


273 

whole  context  into  view  the  purpose  seems  to  be  to  stress 
the  transcendent  nature  of  Christ  as  against  any  minimiz¬ 
ing  tendency. 

The  term  firstborn  conveys  the  meaning  involved  in 
the  then  familiar  law  of  human  primogeniture.  As  the 
firstborn  ruled  and  guided  the  house  of  which  he  was  the 
head  so  the  firstborn  of  all  creation  is  the  Lord  and  gov¬ 
ernor  of  all.  The  supremacy  of  Christ  above  all  created 
things  is  the  dominating  thought  of  the  passage. 

Christ  is  not  the  first  creature  as  the  Arians  would 
interpret  prototokos.  Nor  may  we  say  with  Olshausen  that 
“the  Son  of  God  is  the  intelligible  world.” 

The  doctrine  of  an  eternal  humanity  of  Christ,  and  the 
idea  that  he  is  the  prototype  of  humanity,  held  by  Bey- 
schlag,  and  suggested  by  Dr.  Dale,  is  declared  by  Meyer 
to  be  foreign  to  the  context. 

Verse  16,  “For  in  (sometimes  translated  by)  him  were 
all  things  created”  cannot  be  made  to  mean  that  the  uni¬ 
verse,  material  and  spiritual,  is  an  efflux  of  the  divine  sub¬ 
stance;  else  ex  autou  would  be  required  instead  of  en  auto. 
“In  him”  has  no  Pantheistic  taint,  as  Christ  is  ever  dis- 
inguished  from  the  universe  which  he  made. 

Dr.  Strong  lays  much  stress  on  the  expression,  “in  him” 
in  connection  with  the  creation.  His  peculiar  doctrine  of 
Ethical  Monism  runs  deeply  into  the  idea  that  all  things 
are  created  “in  him.”  And  his  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
is  based  on  the  idea  that  Christ  is  the  life  of  humanity. 
“In  him  were  all  things  created”  contains  no  denial  of 
instrumentality,  but  expresses  the  ground  in  which  lay  the 
possibility  of  their  being.  All  things  depended  on  him 
for  their  creation.  The  causal  prerogative  and  power  lay 
in  him.  Meyer  affirms  that  the  expression  is  a  well  known 
classical  form  to  denote  causality. 

The  thing  particularly  to  be  remembered  in  regard  to 
this  passage  is  that  it  in  no  sense  identifies  Christ  with 
the  creature;  but  exalts  him  above  and  distinguishes  him 
from  the  creature,  and  therefore  does  not  lend  itself  to 
the  view  that  the  atonement  is  based  upon  an  organic  re¬ 
lation  to  the  race. 

Another  text  that  figures  largely  is: 

Jno.  1:4.  In  him  was  life  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men. 

Dr.  Strong  utters  it  and  reiterates  it,  that  Christ  is 
the  life  of  humanity.  If  the  assumption,  call  it  biological 


274 


SOTERIOLOGY 


or  philosophical  at  will,  is  true,  it  does  not  appear  from  this 
text.  The  zoe,  life,  was  the  phos,  light,  of  men.  Two 
things  are  to  be  observed;  the  zoe  was  the  phos  of  men, 
not  the  zoe  of  men.  Again  the  verb  is  “was,”  not  “is.” 

There  is  an  absolute  distinction  between  the  zoe  and 
the  phos;  there  is  no  identity  here.  The  preterite  also 
excludes  the  present  from  the  limitations  of  this  particular 
statement.  Here  is  the  revealing  office  of  the  Logos;  the 
communication  of  divine  truth  in  the  primeval  stage  of  the 
race;  but  identity?  No.  But  this  is  true  that  the  source 
of  life  is  also  the  source  of  light. 

Another  text  that  is  referred  to  in  this  connection  is: 

Rev.  13:8.  Written  in  the  book  of  life  of  the  Lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world. 

Observe : — 

This  is  not  to  be  understood  literally.  The  crucifixion 
was  an  event  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

It  may  be  regarded  proleptically,  a  matter  of  divine 
purpose  and  foreknowledge. 

The  American  Revisers  connect  the  time  clause  with 
the  word  “written”  and  not  with  the  word  “slain;”  ex¬ 
pressing  eternal  election,  not  eternal  atonement. 

In  what  sense  Christ  is  the  “life  of  humanity”  is  the 
crux  of  the  whole  situation.  Dr.  Strong  in  his  Dogmatic 
Theology  repeatedly  makes  the  assertion  but  does  not  prove 
it  nor  explain  it.  In  his  Ethical  Monism  he  is  equally  vague 
and  reticent. 

To  say  that  Christ  is  the  creator,  and  upholder  of  all 
things,  and  immanent  God  falls  short  of  the  statement 
that  Christ  is  the  life  of  humanity,  and  fails  utterly  in  mak¬ 
ing  him  responsible  for  the  sins  of  the  race  and  therefore 
responsible  for  their  atonement. 

If  man  is  regarded  as  the  efflux  of  the  divine  essence 
there  would  be  some  basis  for  the  position  in  question; 
but  this  is  both  unscriptural  and  unphilosophic.  Christ 
is  creator  of  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  material 
and  spiritual,  and  any  effluent  conception  is  too  essentially 
pantheistic.  That  would  be  divine  monism. 

Some  theologians,  in  explaining  the  moral  power  of 
Christ  over  the  race,  have  declared  that  he  was  one  with 
the  race  in  sympathy  and  fellowship;  but  this  is  not  what 
is  meant. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


275 


Others  have  rested  the  union  of  Christ  and  man  on 
a  federal  representation  voluntarily  and  graciously  assumed ; 
but  this  is  exactly  what  is  repudiated;  and  denominated 
an  arbitrary  imputation  and  a  legal  fiction.  We  are  not  too 
much  to  fear  God’s  arbitrariness.  To  some  minds  the  ex¬ 
ercise  of  divine  sovereignty  seems  arbitrary.  Creation  was 
an  arbitrary  act.  Redemption  itself  was  arbitrary.  The 
sovereignty  that  is  arbitrary  may  be  none  the  less  graci¬ 
ous.  If  the  gracious  assumption  of  human  guilt  by  im¬ 
putation  is  arbitrary,  then  the  original  establishment  of 
organic  relation  to  the  race,  or  the  original  purpose  to 
create  is  also  arbitrariness  only  one  step  farther  away. 

Man  is  a  moral  and  responsible  being  under  the  laws 
of  God,  and  legal  relations  and  conceptions  are  not  only 
pertinent  but  inevitable. 

The  jurist’s  law  is  not  the  naturalist’s  law;  but  just 
as  necessary  in  a  moral  universe.  Biology  and  government 
are  different  realms.  To  confuse  them  brings  but  one  re¬ 
sult,  confusion.  That  “he  was  made  sin  for  us  who  knew 
no  sin,”  in  the  accepted  sense  of  the  words,  was  no  legal 
fiction  but  a  legal  reality. 

Further,  if  Christ’s  relation  to  men  as  creator  con¬ 
stitutes  the  ground  of  his  responsibility  for  human  sin, 
it  would  follow  by  logical  inference  that  his  relation  to 
angels,  as  the  creator  of  things  in  heaven,  would  entail 
on  him  the  responsibility  for  angelic  defection. 

And  if  his  relation  as  creator  of  men  lays  on  him  the 
obligation  for  their  redemption,  the  same  law  must  hold 
good  in  regard  to  fallen  angels. 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable  from  the  premises  assumed. 

The  arbitrariness  of  God’s  sovereignty  would  at  least 
escape  this  conclusion;  “for  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the 
nature  of  angels  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham.” 

The  Scriptures  everywhere  represent  salvation  as  a 
gratuity  or  a  free  gift,  and  that  Christ  came  voluntarily, 
and  gave  his  life  voluntarily.  This  does  not  harmonize 
well  with  the  conception  that  Christ  lay  under  an  obliga¬ 
tion  that  he  could  not  escape. 

However  much  it  is  sought  to  tie  up  the  doctrine  with 
certain  Biblical  expressions  it  still  remains  more  speculative 
than  scriptural. 

What  then  is  the  truth  in  the  conception  of  eternal 
atonement  ? 


276 


SOTERIOLOGY 


It  is  certain  that  the  atonement  expresses  eternal  facts 
in  the  nature  of  God.  God's  eternal  antagonism  to  evil; 
God's  eternal  love  for  his  creatures;  the  eternal  attributes 
of  mercy,  justice,  holiness,  and  love,  etc.,  and  the  mutual 
relation  of  these  attributes.  These  are  eternal  and  im- 
-  manent  in  the  work  of  atonement. 

As  revelation  was  a  moral  certainty  growing  out  of 
the  nature  of  God  and  his  love  for  those  made  in  his  image, 
so  atonement  was  a  moral  certainty  on  the  same  grounds. 

The  necessity  of  atonement  was  a  relative,  not  an 
absolute,  necessity, — not  the  necessity  of  compulsion,  or 
obligation,  or  debt  to  the  creature,  but  a  necessity  to  ends 
contingent  in  themselves.  The  atonement  was  a  necessity 
if  man  was  to  be  saved;  and  if,  in  saving  man,  God  must 
maintain  his  veracity,  and  vindicate  his  holiness. 

The  atonement  finds  its  roots  in  the  attributes  of  God. 
The  divine  actions  are  the  expressions  of  the  divine  na¬ 
ture,  and  the  divine  nature  necessitates  the  harmony  of  all 
the  attributes,  holiness,  justice,  mercy  and  love,  etc.,  else 
one  attribute  would  destroy  another. 

The  incarnation,  substitution,  sacrifice,  remission,  and 
propitiation  find  their  explanation  in  the  immutable  char¬ 
acter  and  harmony  of  the  divine  nature  and  in  this  sense 
we  may  speak  of  eternal  atonement. 

The  atonement  is  particularly  the  expression  of  God’s 
nature  in  its  relation  to  moral  government  in  a  fallen  world. 
It  answers  the  question  how  God  can  be  just  and  justify 
the  ungodly. 

The  historical  work  was  the  concrete  exhibition  of 
eternal  facts  and  immutable  principles,  making  visible  the 
invisible. 

We  can  quote  Dr.  Strong  with  approval  when  he  says: 
“As  the  earthly  tabernacle  was  made  after  the  pattern 
shown  in  the  mount,  so  the  historical  atonement  was  but 
the  shadowing  forth  to  dull  and  finite  minds  of  an  infinite 
demand  of  the  divine  holiness,  and  an  infinite  satisfaction 
rendered  by  the  divine  love.” 

How  God  can  create  without  imparting  his  divine  sub¬ 
stance  to  the  creature, — how  God  can  communicate  his  will 
and  grace  to  men, — in  fact  how  any  spirit  can  commune 
with  another, — how  God  can  be  immanent  and  yet  apart 
from  all  the  beings  interpenetrated  by  his  essence, — how 
God  operates  in  regeneration  beneath  the  sphere  of  con- 


SOTERIOLOGY 


277 


sciousness, — how  the  sense  of  guilt  and  condemnation  is 
taken  away  and  peace  possesses  the  soul  of  the  believer, — 
all  these  things  and  many  more  are  mysterious  if  not  in¬ 
comprehensible. 

But  one  thing  is  certain,  we  must  so  postulate  the 
relation  of  God  to  man  as  not  to  lose  the  personality  of 
God  in  man,  nor  submerge  the  personality  of  man  in  God; 
neither  to  compromise  the  holiness  of  God  by  making  him 
responsible  for  human  sin,  nor  render  man  unaccountable 
for  sin  by  laying  it  upon  his  creator.  Either  line  of  aber¬ 
ration  is  fatal  to  all  moral  life  in  the  world.  This  is  the 
sin  of  pantheism. 

Whatever  view  of  the  atonement  effaces  or  obscures 
the  transcendence  and  holiness  of  God  and  the  individuality 
and  responsibility  of  man  proves  itself  false  by  the  outcome. 
These  fundamental  facts  must  be  held  inviolable  as  the 
presuppositions  of  moral  government  and  religious  life  in 
the  world. 

But  standing  on  these  essential  foundations  we  may 
cheerfully  assert  that  God’s  love  was  eternal ;  God’s  purpose 
to  save  was  eternal;  God’s  gift  and  sacrifice  of  his  Son 
was  eternal;  and  there  was  an  eternal  atonement  and  an 
eternal  cross  in  the  heart  of  God. 

Section  X.  Union  of  objective  and  subjective  in  the 
atonement. 

Before  passing  to  the  APPLICATION  of  the  atonement 
we  may  well  consider  briefly  the  relation  of  the  objective 
facts  to  the  subjective  effect. 

One  of  the  problems  of  the  present-day  theologian 
is  to  conceive  and  express  the  laws  which  connect  the 
atonement  with  the  new  life  springing  from  it. 

Have  we  regarded  the  atonement  too  much  as  a  trans¬ 
action  and  not  as  a  living  acting  force?  Is  the  atonement 
something  done  and  finished  nineteen  hundred  years  ago, 
or  a  vitalizing  power  in  the  world  now? 

In  distinguishing  between  the  work  of  Christ  and  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  we  cannot  separate  them  entirely,  nor 
fail  to  recognize  that  they  are  both  of  one  piece.  What 
Christ  did  without  us  and  what  he  does  within  us  are 
correlative.  The  moral  influence  theory  cuts  the  fruit  from 
the  root;  but  we  will  cut  the  root  from  the  fruit  if  we  sep¬ 
arate  the  atonement  from  the  life  that  grows  out  of  it. 


278 


SOTERIOLOGY 


There  is  a  vital  union  between  the  making-  of  the  atone¬ 
ment  and  the  application  of  it.  To  receive  Christ  is  to 
receive  the  atonement.  Christ  mediates  the  atonement  to 
us  by  the  communication  of  life.  Christ  communicates  the 
atonement  through  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  The  work  of 
the  Spirit  is  the  atonement  in  action.  Not  only  must  the 
atonement  pay  the  penalty  of  sin,  but  right  all  the  wrong 
of  sin;  and  this  work  is  present-day  and  age-long  work. 
The  atonement  is  more  than  a  mere  transaction  past  and 
gone;  it  is  a  living  force.  This  is  not  confusing  the  work 
of  Christ  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit  but  connecting  them. 


The  following  chapters  are  sometimes  classified  as  a 
distinct  PART  called  PNEUMATOLOGY.  However  they 
properly  belong  to  Soteriology  since  they  embrace: 

The  Application  of  Redemption,  or  the  Work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  work  of  Christ  was  to  MAKE  the  atone¬ 
ment;  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  APPLY  it;  to 
use  general  terms. 

Catechism  29.  How  are  we  made  partakers  of  the 
redemption,  etc. 

Catechism  30.  How  doth  the  Spirit  apply  to  us  the 
redemption,  etc. 

The  purpose  of  God  in  man's  salvation  not  only  se¬ 
cures  the  making  of  an  atonement;  but  secures  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  it,  to  those  who  are  saved.  Without  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  all  men  would  continue  in  rebellion  and  sin, 
and  Christ  then  had  died  in  vain. 

The  Spirit's  work  is  to  make  the  atonement  certainly 
efficacious  to  those  who  are  saved. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


279 


Chapter  VI.  Vocation  or  Calling. 

The  first  step  in  the  Spirit’s  work  is  vocation  or  calling. 

1.  There  is  the  external  call  of  the  gospel:  e.  g.  “Ho 
every  one  that  thirsteth.”  “Come  unto  me  all  ye  that 
labor.”  The  Spirit  and  the  bride  say:  Come.”  “Whoso¬ 
ever  will  let  him  come.” 

(a)  It  is  universal;  addressed  to  all  indiscriminately. 
Christ’s  command  is  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature ; 
because  it  is  a  proclamation  of  the  terms  on  which  God 
is  willing  to  save  sinners. 

(b)  A  universal  call  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  per¬ 
sonal  election,  or  non  election,  because  it  is  the  means 
to  the  end  in  one  case,  and  a  ground  of  condemnation  in 
the  other. 

(c)  The  call  is  addressed  to  men  through  the  Scrip¬ 
tures. 

The  way  of  salvation  is  not  made  known: — 

By  the  works  of  nature. 

By  providence. 

By  intuition. 

By  the  deductions  of  reason. 

Nor  generally  by  internal  revelation. 

But  the  way  of  salvation  is  made  known  by  revelation 
in  the  Scriptures.  As  to  the  external  call  there  are  many 
called  and  few  chosen. 

2.  There  is  an  effectual  call  by  the  Holy  Spirit  usually 
through  the  word  by  which  men  are  brought  into  saving 
relation  to  God. 

Rom.  8:30.  Whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called; 
and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified. 

I  Cor.  1:9.  By  whom  ye  were  called  unto  the  fellowship  of 
his  Son. 

I  Pet.  2:9.  Who  hath  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his 
marvelous  light. 

I  Pet.  5:10.  Who  hath  called  us  into  his  eternal  glory  by 
Christ  Jesus. 

Catechism  31,  What  is  effectual  calling? 

This  call  convicts,  convinces,  persuades,  enables. 

It  is  effectual  in  that  it  secures  the  submission  of  the 
soul  to  God. 

It  is  particular,  personal,  efficacious  and  irresistible. 


280 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Chapter  VII.  Grace. 

1.  Grace  Defined. 

The  word  grace  means  favor. 

The  kindly  disposition  toward  man  in  the  mind  of 
God  is  called  grace.  The  operation  of  a  holy  divine  in¬ 
fluence  on  man  is  called  grace.  The  result  of  that  opera¬ 
tion  in  the  heart  and  life  of  man  is  called  grace. 

2.  Grace  Distinguished. 

Common  grace  is  a  greater  or  less  measure  of  grace 
granted  to  all  who  hear  the  gospel. 

Prevenient  grace  is  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
mind  that  precedes  and  excites  its  efforts  to  return  to  God. 

Sufficient  grace  is  grace  sufficient  to  lead  to  repentance 
and  faith.  Efficacious  grace  is  such  an  influence  of  the 
Spirit  as  is  certainly  effectual  in  producing  regeneration 
and  conversion.  It  involves  the  idea  of  active  power. 

Habitual  grace  is  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  be¬ 
lievers,  or  rather  the  effect  of  that  continual  indwelling. 

3.  Grace  and  Truth. 

(a)  Some  hold  that  there  is  no  influence  of  the  Spirit 
on  the  hearts  of  men,  but  only  the  natural  influence  of  the 
truth. 

(b)  Luther  and  his  coadjutors  taught  that  the  power 
of  the  Spirit  was  inherent  in  the  word  and  that  he  never 
operates  on  the  mind  except  through  and  by  the  word. 

They  were  led  to  this  position  by  the  claims  of  fanatics 
to  direct  communications  from  God  independent  of  the 
Scriptures.  Modern  Lutherans  would  say  that  the  Spirit’s 
work  is  ordinarily  through  the  truth. 

(c)  Reformed  theology  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit’s 
influence  is  distinct  from  the  natural  influence  of  the  truth ; 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  also  acts  with  the  truth,  preparing 
the  mind  for  the  truth,  and  making  it  effective,  and  fur¬ 
ther  that  the  Spirit  may  act  directly  upon  the  mind  and 
independent  of  the  truth. 

Among  other  things  the  Spirit  restrains  evil,  instructs, 
awakens,  convicts,  convinces,  persuades,  regenerates,  sancti¬ 
fies.  He  may  use  means  or  no  means,  act  with  the  truth 
or  without  the  truth,  where  and  when  and  how  he  pleases. 


SOTERlOLOCY 


281 


Catechism  89.  How  is  the  word  made  effectual  to 
salvation?  The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the  reading  but 
especially  the  preaching  of  the  word  an  effectual  means  of 
convincing  and  converting  sinners  and  of  building  them 
up  in  holiness  and  comfort  through  faith  unto  salvation. 

4.  The  Effect  of  Common  Grace. 

(a)  Semi-Pelagians  and  Romanists  hold  that  common 
grace  is  sufficient  to  enable  the  sinner  to  do  that  which 
will  either  merit,  or  secure  larger  degrees  of  grace,  which 
if  duly  improved  will  issue  in  salvation.  This  puts  the 
efficiency  largely  in  the  hands  of  man. 

(b)  The  Arminian  confession  says:  “The  Holy  Ghost 
confers  or  is  ready  to  confer  upon  all  and  each,  to  whom  the 
word  of  faith  is  ordinarily  preached,  as  much  grace  as  is 
sufficient  for  generating  faith  and  carrying  forward  their 
conversion  in  its  successive  stages. 

Thus  sufficient  grace  for  faith  and  conversion  not  only 
to  those  who  actually  believe  and  are  converted,  but  also 
to  those  who  do  not  actually  believe  and  are  not  in  fact 
converted.” — “Confessio  Remonstrantium.” 

This  makes  salvation  a  matter  of  co-operation  with 
common  grace. 

(c)  The  Calvinistic  and  Reformed  system  teaches  that 
there  is  a  common  grace  that  it  is  sufficient  for  some  things, 
— to  convince  men  of  sin  and  of  their  need  of  redemption, 
and  to  render  men  inexcusable  for  sin  and  unbelief. 

Rom.  1:20.  The  invisible  things  of  Him  etc.  are  clearly  seen. 

Rom.  2:1.  Therefore  thou  art  inexcusable  O  man. 

Acts  14:17.  He  left  himself  not  without  witness  in  that  he 
did  good,  etc. 

This  common  grace  does  awaken  and  incite  to  better 
things;  but  does  not  change  the  heart  or  regenerate  the 
nature,  and  that  regeneration  is  not  effected  by  the  co¬ 
operation  of  the  human  will. 

Dr.  Shedd  says:  “The  non-elect  receive  common  grace, 
and  common  grace  would  incline  the  human  will  if  it  were 
not  defeated  by  the  human  will.  If  the  sinner  should  make 
no  hostile  opposition,  common  grace  would  be  equivalent 
to  saving  grace.” 

Acts  7:51.  Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Spirit. 

II  Tim.  3:8.  Now  as  Jannes  and  Jambres  withstood  Moses, 
so  do  these  also  resist  the  truth. 


282 


SoTeriologY 


“To  say  that  common  grace,  if  not  resisted  by  the  sin¬ 
ner,  would  be  equivalent  to  regenerating  grace  is  not  the 
same  as  to  say  that  common  grace  ASSISTED  by  the  sin¬ 
ner  would  be  equivalent  to  regenerating  grace.  In  the 
first  instance,  God  would  be  the  sole  author  of  regenera¬ 
tion;  in  the  second  he  would  not  be.” 

This  system  puts  the  efficiency  in  the  hands  of  God. 

In  answer  to  the  question:  What  is  the  efficient  cause 
of  a  change  of  heart  we  have  the  following  replies: — 

Pelagianism  says,  the  human  will. 

Arminianism  says,  the  co-operation  of  the  human  and 
divine  wills. 

Roman  Catholicism  says,  divine  grace  deposited  in  the 
sacrament  of  baptism. 

The  Lutheran  says,  the  Spirit  of  God  operating  ordi¬ 
narily  through  the  word  and  sacraments. 

The  Reformed  and  Calvinistic  faiths  say,  the  Spirit 
working  when  and  where  and  how  he  wills. 


Chapter  VIII.  Regeneration. 

1.  Regeneration  is  not  a  change  in  the  substance  of 
the  soul. 


2.  It  is  not  a  new  faculty  added  to  the  soul. 

3.  It  is  not  moral  suasion,  though  that  has  its  place. 

4.  It  is  not  co-operation  of  human  and  divine  power, 
called  synergism.  Man  is  not  the  agency  in  his  regenera¬ 
tion;  nor  one-half  of  that  agency;  nor  any  part  of  it.  He 
is  the  subject  of  regeneration. 

5.  It  is  not  dependent  on  the  congruity  of  the  human 
and  divine  minds;  but  God  is  sovereign  in  regeneration 
and  can  regenerate  when  and  whom  he  will;  even  men  at 
the  height  of  their  rebellion. 

6.  It  is  an  almighty  creative  act  of  God. 

7.  It  is  instantaneous. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


283 


8.  It  is  without  means.  It  is  not  proper  to  speak  of 
the  means  of  regeneration.  There  is  no  baptismal  regene¬ 
ration  in  the  sense  that  baptism  is  the  efficient  cause,  or 
even  an  instrumental  cause. 

9.  It  is  irresistible.  Man  can  no  more  resist  the  new 
birth  than  he  can  resist  his  natural  birth.  God  gave  us 
being  without  the  exercise  of  our  power  or  even  our  con¬ 
sent  being  asked  in  the  matter. 

10.  While  regeneration  does  not  change  the  substance 
of  the  soul  nor  add  new  faculties,  it  does  produce  a  moral 
change,  in  disposition,  in  character,  in  the  direction  of  the 
soul's  activities ;  it  brings  in  a  new  principle  of  life  dominat¬ 
ing  and  regulating  the  conduct ;  in  short  it  imparts  spiritual 
life. 

I  Jno.  5:12.  He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life. 

Ephes.  2:1.  And  you  hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead  in 
tresspasses  and  sins. 

Ephes.  2:5.  Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins  hath  quickened 
us  etc. 

The  word  “quicken”  is  literally,  “make  alive.” 

11.  Man  may  co-operate  with  prevenient  grace  and 
with  subsequent  or  sanctifying  grace;  but  is  passive  in 
regeneration. 

It  must  be  particularly  observed  that  while  man  may 
co-operate  with  prevenient  grace,  it  is  not  human  co-opera¬ 
tion  that  renders  grace  efficacious.  God’s  grace  needs  no 
human  assistance  to  make  it  effectual.  All  the  efficiency 
of  grace  is  of  God. 

Even  the  co-operation  that  man  renders  is  the  product 
of  God’s  grace. 

Ephes.  2:8.  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith  and  that  not 
of  yourselves  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 

12.  Regeneration  is  below  the  sphere  of  conscious¬ 
ness,  but  its  effects  come  into  conscious  apprehension  in 
the  graces  of  the  Christian  life. 

13.  Regeneration  is  absolutely  essential  to  salvation. 

Jno.  3:3.  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God. 


284 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Chapter  IX.  Faith. 

1.  Usage  of  the  word. 

(a)  Objective  faith.  “Faith”  sometimes  connotes  the 
object  on  which  faith  rests,  or  the  essential  contents  of 
faith,  as  a  body  of  truth. 

The  following  are  examples  of  objective  faith:  “Hath 
denied  the  faith.”  “Preacheth  the  faith  which  once  he 
destroyed.”  “Some  shall  depart  from  the  faith.”  “The 
word  of  faith  which  we  preach.”  “The  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints.” 

Here  faith  means  a  body  of  truth  or  doctrine. 

“Christ  our  hope”  points  out  the  object  on  which  our 
hope  is  fixed  and  is  an  example  of  objective  hope. 

If  I  say:  “The  Bible  is  my  faith.”  The  word  faith 
is  used  in  an  objective  sense. 

(b)  Subjective  faith. 

The  word  faith  also  and  more  frequently  expresses 
a  quality  or  action  of  the  soul.  “I  have  faith”  discloses 
subjective  faith. 

“I  believe,  or  exercise  faith  in  God,”  expresses  a  sub¬ 
jective  faith.  “If  ye  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard,” 
“Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee.” 

“Faith  is  substance  of  things  hoped  for,”  all  express 
subjective  faith. 

2.  Definitions  of  Faith. 

Faith  is  belief  in  that  for  which  there  is  no  proof — 
the  infidel's  definition. 

Faith  is  belief  in  what  is  unseen  or  not  apprehended 
by  the  senses. 

This  is  not  comprehensive  enough. 

Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for  and  evidence  of 
things  not  seen.  Heb.  11:1.  This  may  not  have  been  intended  for 
a  strict  definition  of  faith.  There  is  a  difference  between  a  definition 
and  a  description  or  characterization. 

Faith  is  belief  on  evidence.  Best  definition  of  faith 
in  the  abstract.  Faith  is  assent  of  the  mind  and  consent 
of  the  will.  This  is  true  of  saving  faith. 

“Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  a  saving  grace  whereby  we 
receive  and  rest  upon  Him  alone  for  salvation  as  He  is 
offered  to  us  in  the  gospel.” — Cat.  86.  Best  definition  of 
saving  faith. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


285 


“Faith  is  assent  of  the  mind  to  what  is  probably  but 
not  certainly  true.”- — Locke. 

“Faith  is  any  persuasion  weaker  than  knowledge,  and 
stronger  than  possibility  or  probability.”  It  is  common 
usage  to  say  of  that  which  is  uncertain,  I  think  it  is  so; 
of  that  which  is  highly  probable,  I  believe  it  is  so;  of  that 
which  is  demonstrably  certain,  I  know  it  is  so.  Here  then 
we  have  faith  as  something  more  than  opinion  and  some¬ 
thing  less  than  certainty.  This  scarcely  does  justice  to 
faith;  which  often  includes  the  strongest  convictions  of 
the  human  mind. 

3.  Kinds  of  Faith. 

(a)  Speculative  faith,  or  historical  faith,  is  an  in¬ 
tellectual  apprehension  lacking  a  moral  or  spiritual  purpose. 

Acts  8:13.  Simon  Magus  was  said  to  believe. 

James  2:19.  The  devils  believe  and  tremble. 

The  faith  that  does  not  lay  hold  of  Christ  is  not  a 
saving  faith. 

(b)  Temporary  faith.  A  faith  seemingly  genuine 
but  evanescent  in  character.  Illustrated  by  the  seed  sown 
on  the  rock. 

(c)  Saving  faith.  Such  a  faith  as  unites  the  soul 
to  God,  and  issues  in  salvation.  True  faith  has  the  ele¬ 
ment  of  affection  as  well  as  belief  and  the  element  of  will 
or  purpose  combined  with  both. 

The  Roman  Catholic  theologian  distinguishes  saving 
faith  into  explicit  and  implicit  faith. 

When  a  man  understands  and  intelligently  believes  he 
exercises  explicit  faith. 

But  there  are  many  doctrines  which  a  humble  man 
may  not  understand,  and  may  never  have  heard,  yet  he 
may  believe  and  accept  all  that  the  church  teaches,  be¬ 
cause  he  has  confidence  in  the  church.  This  is  called  im¬ 
plicit  faith. 

The  question  may  very  properly  be  raised,  whether 
the  man  has  any  faith  as  to  the  things  of  which  he  knows 
nothing. 

The  Disciple  or  Campbellite  has  been  accused  of  re¬ 
ducing  saving  faith  to  a  mere  intellectual  assent  to  the 
truth. 


286 


SOTERIOLOGY 


4.  Relation  of  Faith  to  Knowledge. 

(a)  No  sharp  line  can  be  drawn  between  faith  and 
knowledge. 

Their  spheres  overlap. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  we  do  not  believe  what  we  know 
or  that  we  do  not  know  some  things  which  we  believe. 

I  may  say:  I  know  I  washed  my  face  this  morning. 
I  may  also  say:  I  believe  I  washed  my  face  this  morning. 

The  fact  of  knowing  it  does  not  curtail  nor  super¬ 
sede  belief  in  it. 

However,  faith  may  differ  from  knowledge  in  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  emotion  and  will,  in  cases  involving  a  person. 

(b)  Which  takes  precedence? 

Must  we  know  in  order  to  believe  or  believe  in  order 
to  know? 

Here  too  no  universal  rule  is  admissable. 

There  must  be  some  apprehension  before  there  can 
be  faith  in  a  person  or  a  proposition.  No  one  can  believe 
in  a  God  of  whom  he  has  never  heard  nor  in  a  proposition 
that  has  never  been  before  his  mind.  No  one  can  believe 
in  a  God  of  whom  he  has  no  intellectual  apprehension. 

On  the  other  hand  there  must  be  faith  in  the  trust¬ 
worthiness  of  our  senses  our  faculties,  and  the  processes 
of  thought  before  any  considerable  acquisition  of  knowledge 
is  possible. 

5.  Faith  in  relation  to  Salvation. 

(a)  It  is  the  connecting  link  between  the  believer 
and  Christ. 

The  Spirit  applies  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ 
by  working  faith  in  us  and  thereby  uniting  us  to  Christ. 

Gal.  3:26.  For  ye  are  all  the  sons  of  God  through  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus. 

Jno.  1:12.  To  as  many  as  received  him  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God. 

Jno.  3:16.  Whosoever  believeth  on  him,  etc. 

I  Jno.  5:12.  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is 
born  of  God. 

Acts  16:3.  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved. 

(b)  It  is  the  instrumental  cause  of  Justification. 
Rom.  5:1,  Being  justified  by  faith. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


287 


(c)  Results  in  peace,  assurance,  sanctification  and  all 
graces  of  the  Christ  life. 

(d)  Faith  is  an  appropriate  condition  of  salvation 
because  an  intellectual  apprehension  and  belief  of  the  truth 
is  necessary  in  order  to  yield  to  it  and  obey  it;  and  a  per¬ 
sonal  trust  in  God,  and  purpose  toward  him  is  essential  to 
any  filial  relation. 


Chapter  X.  Conversion. 

1.  Definition.  Conversion  is  turning  from  sin  unto 
God.  Conversion  is  the  human  side  of  that  transaction 
which  unites  the  soul  to  Christ.  Faith,  repentance  and 
conversion  are  human  activities.  This  does  not  deny  that 
they  are  supernatural  effects.  They  are  both.  “Work  out 
your  own  salvation  in  fear  and  trembing,  for  it  is  not  ye 
that  work  but  God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.”  Some  authorities  say  that 
turning  from  sin  is  repentance,  and  turning  to  God  is 
faith.  It  is  doubtful  if  such  discrimination  is  valid. 
Rather  the  term  repentance  covers  both.  No  better  defini¬ 
tion  of  conversion  is  found  than  that  in  the  Shorter  Cate¬ 
chism  Question  87.  What  is  Repentance  unto  life? 

“Repentance  unto  life  is  a  saving  grace,  whereby  a 
sinner,  out  of  a  true  sense  of  his  sin,  and  apprehension 
of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  doth,  with  grief  and  hatred 
of  his  sin,  turn  from  it  unto  God,  with  full  purpose  of, 
and  endeavor  after  new  obedience.” 

2.  Explanation. 

(a)  It  will  be  seen  in  the  above  definition  how  con¬ 
version  involves  the  whole  man. 

Observe,  “sense  of  sin  and  apprehension,” — there  is 
the  intellectual  element;  “grief  and  hatred,” — there  is  the 
emotional  element;  “full  purpose,” — there  is  the  volitional 
element;  “endeavor,” — there  is  purpose  translated  into  ac¬ 
tion. 


(b)  Repentance  and  conversion  mean  more  than  mere 
sorrow  for  sin. 

There  is  a  sorrow  of  the  world  that  worketh  death. 


288 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Judas  had  sorrow  but  no  repentance  or  conversion. 

True  examples  of  repentance  are,  Job,  David,  Peter, 
the  prodigal,  the  penitent  thief,  and  Saul;  each  of  whom 
not  only  sorrowed  for  sin,  but  turned  unto  God. 

(c)  How  much  conviction,  sorrow,  faith  etc.  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  conversion? 

H.  W.  Beecher  once  said:  “How  many  knots  an  hour 
must  the  wind  blow  to  take  the  ship  out  of  the  harbor? 
Will  ten  knots  do  it?  Yes.  Will  five  knots  do  it?  Yes, 
five  knots  will  do  it.  Will  one  knot  do  it?  Yes,  one  will 
do  it  if  that  is  enough  to  move  the  ship.” 

Lydia  came  by  the  gentle  persuasion  of  the  truth  bles¬ 
sed  by  God,  but  it  required  an  earthquake  to  move  the 
Philippian  jailor. 

(d)  Does  conversion  occur  but  once? 

Since  conversion  means  turning  from  sin  unto  God, 
and  since  regeneration  is  not  immediate  sanctification,  all 
turning  to  God  is  a  conversion  in  a  modified  sense;  but 
the  best  terminology  confines  conversion  to  the  initial  stages 
of  the  work,  when  a  new  principle  becomes  dominant  in  the 
government  of  the  life. 

New  blessings  there  may  be,  new  steps,  degrees  of 
sanctification,  fluctuations,  falls  and  restoration,  renewed 
endeavors  and  victories;  but  these  are  phases  of  a  nature 
already  changed  by  regeneration ;  and  the  first  experimental 
change  we  call  conversion. 

3.  Logical  and  Chronological  Relations. 

What  is  the  order  of  events  in  the  process  of  con¬ 
version  ? 

Does  faith  precede  regeneration,  or  must  a  man  be 
regenerated  in  order  to  believe? 

Does  a  man  turn  to  God  to  be  saved,  or  does  he  turn 
to  God  because  he  is  saved? 

The  process  of  conversion  is  so  complex  that  it  is  not 
wise  to  fix  an  exact  chronological  order ;  if  indeed  it  is  wise 
in  all  respects  to  fix  a  logical  one.  We  may  allow  some 
variety  in  details. 

In  some  cases  the  steps  may  be  synchronous,  in  others, 
faith,  repentance,  conversion,  etc.  may  be  very  complex 
in  themselves,  and  manifest  themselves  in  degrees  and 
measures  rather  than  in  integral  steps. 


SOTERIOLOGY  289 

Logically  and  chronologically,  however,  a  regenerated 
life  follows  and  is  the  result  of  a  regenerated  nature. 

Dr.  Strong  illustrates: — “A  candidate  for  ordination 
was  once  asked  which  came  first:  regeneration  or  convers¬ 
ion.  He  replied  very  correctly:  ‘Regeneration  and  convers¬ 
ion  are  like  the  cannon-ball  and  the  hole — they  both  go 
through  together.’  This  is  true  however  only  as  to  their 
chronological  relation.  Logically  the  ball  is  first  and  causes 
the  hole,  not  the  hole  first  and  causes  the  ball.” 

4.  Divine  and  Human  Agency  in  Conversion. 

(a)  In  regeneration,  God  is  the  sole  agent. 

Conversion  belongs  to  the  human  side  of  the  work  of 
grace  and  involves  human  agency. 

Yet  even  the  human  side  is  not  devoid  of  divine  agency. 
God  so  works  on  man  and  in  man  as  to  incite  and  call 
forth  his  activity. 

Human  agency  in  conversion  is  so  interpenetrated  by 
divine  agency  that  no  sharp  line  can  be  drawn  between 
the  human  and  divine  elements. 

No  one  can  say  just  where  the  divine  leaves  off  and 
the  human  begins. 

Phil.  2:12,  13.  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling;  for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure. 

(b)  This  does  not  destroy  man’s  freedom,  really 
makes  him  truly  free. 

God’s  work  in  man  instead  of  interfering  with  man’s 
freedom,  to  mention  but  one  thing,  takes  off  the  pressure 
of  man’s  innate  moral  depravity  that  hinders  his  free  ap¬ 
proach  to  God. 

Man  is  an  agent,  a  free  moral  agent,  however  much 
God’s  agency  is  involved  in  man’s  activity. 

Everywhere  in  the  Scriptures  man  is  commanded  to 
do  that  for  which  divine  grace  is  required  in  the  doing  of 
it. 

The  man  with  a  withered  arm  was  commanded  to 
stretch  it  forth.  The  paralytic  was  bidden  to  arise  and 
walk.  The  impotent  man  to  arise  and  carry  his  bed. 

So  men  are  commanded  to  believe;  yet  faith  is  called 
the  “gift  of  God.”  The  lost  sheep  is  carried  home  as  if 
he  had  nothing  to  do;  and  the  prodigal  walks  home  as  if 
he  had  everything  to  do. 


290 


SOTERIOLOGY 


While  God  turns  men  to  himself,  men  are  bidden  to 
turn  themselves. 

Ephes.  5:14.  Awake  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the 
dead  and  Christ  shall  give  thee  light. 

The  immanent  God  stands  at  the  springs  of  our  action 
and  the  fountains  of  our  being  below  the  point  where  con¬ 
sciousness  begins. 


Chapter  XI.  Justification. 


Section  I.  Definitions  of  Justification. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism  33 — “Justification  is  an  act 
of  God’s  free  grace  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins  and 
accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  right¬ 
eousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  and  received  by  faith 
alone.” 

(b)  Roman  Catholic  definition. 

“Justification  is  not  only  a  remission  of  sins  but  also 
the  sanctification  and  renovation  of  the  inner  man.” 

(c)  The  Arminian  definition. 

Justification  is  a  “remission  of  sins,”  “a  sentence  of 
pardon.” — Watson’s  Institutes. 

“The  plain  scriptural  notion  of  justification  is  pardon, 
the  forgiveness  of  sins” — Wesley’s  Works. 

(d)  Socinian  or  Unitarian  view. 

Jesus  Christ  by  his  life  and  example  wins  men  to  faith 
in  God.  This  faith  puts  men  into  filial  relationship  to  God, 
with  consequent  moral  change.  This  rectifying  of  life  by 
faith  is  justification.  No  atonement,  no  imputed  right¬ 
eousness;  but  subjective  change;  affecting  the  moral  rather 
than  the  legal  status  of  man. 

The  following  discussion  will  show  which  of  these  views 
is  most  scriptural  and  therefore  correct. 


Section  II.  The  Nature  of  Justification. 

There  are  two  views,  and  really  only  two  of  the  na¬ 
ture  of  justification.  They  are  called  the  subjective  or 


SOTERIOLOGY 


291 


moral  view;  and  the  objective  or  forensic  view.  The  one 
conceives  of  justification  as  an  internal  change  in  the  realm 
of  our  spiritual  life;  the  other  as  an  external  change  in 
the  realm  of  our  legal  relations,  or  our  relation  to  the  law 
of  God. 

On  one  side  are  the  Roman  Catholics,  the  Socinians 
or  Unitarians,  and  those  schools  loosely  designated  as  the 
New  Theology.  On  the  other  side  are  the  Lutheran,  Re¬ 
formed,  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  Churches. 

Strictly  speaking  however,  the  Roman  Catholic  stands 
on  both  sides  teaching  a  justification  by  an  inherent  right¬ 
eousness  yet  admitting  a  forensic  side  to  the  transaction, 
basing  it  on  the  expiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
Roman  Catholic  idea  of  justification  includes  the  idea  of 
sanctification  as  well.  This  causes  confusion  in  discussion. 

1.  The  subjective  or  moral  view. 

(a)  Roman. 

This  conceives  of  justification  as  something  taking 
place  within  a  man  “renovatio  interioris  hominis,”  regarded 
by  the  Romanist  as  a  removal  of  original  sin  and  the  in¬ 
fusion  of  righteousness  by  the  rite  of  baptism.  Justifica¬ 
tion  therefore  takes  place  because  of  an  inherent  righteous¬ 
ness,  or  because  of  what  a  man  is.  Good  works  also  are 
a  basis  of  justification  to  the  adult,  according  to  the  Ro¬ 
man  Catholic.  The  Roman  Catholic  position  really  amounts 
to  two  justifications;  one  because  of  an  infused  grace  in 
baptism,  the  other  because  of  the  merit  of  good  works 
wrought  out  by  the  man  himself;  both  subjective  in  their 
nature. 

(b)  Evolutionary  Schools,  etc. 

The  evolutionary  schools  from  Schleiermacher  onwards, 
and  those  who  hold  to  the  moral  influence  theory  of  the 
atonement,  also  hold  to  the  subjective  nature  of  justifi¬ 
cation.  These  schools  repudiate  the  doctrines  of  expia¬ 
tion  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  and  imputation  of  his  right¬ 
eousness,  and  base  man’s  salvation  on  his  inherent  char¬ 
acter.  Hence  justification  is  subjective.  This  leaves  little 
hope  for  the  thief  on  the  cross  whose  character  had  been 
evil  all  his  life.  A  dying  sinner  needs  a  safer  basis  for 
his  salvation  than  his  own  character.  As  between  the 


292 


SOTERIOLOGY 


New  Theology  and  the  Roman  Catholic  position  the  latter 
is  preferable  by  far,  for  it  proceeds  upon  the  recognition 
of  original  sin,  expiatory  atonement  and  the  need  of  super¬ 
natural  grace. 

2.  The  objective  or  forensic  view. 

(a)  Statement. 

This  view  regards  justification  as  a  judicial  act;  it 
discharges  the  sinner  from  the  condemnation  of  the  law, 
it  is  declaratory,  it  is  a  sentence  of  acquittal,  it  makes  him 
right  with  the  law,  it  assumes  to  treat  him  as  righteous; 
it  is  not  an  infused  righteousness,  but  a  judicial  righteous¬ 
ness  on  the  ground  of  something  done  for  him. 

It  is  not  mere  pardon,  but  includes  pardon. 

These  things  must  be  embraced  in  the  meaning  of  this 
forensic  justification;  viz.  acquittal,  pardon  and  acceptance. 

If  justification  were  nothing  more  than  pardon,  and 
salvation  dependent  on  subsequent  character  and  works, 
then  justification  would  not  be  a  ground  of  assurance  and 
therefore  not  a  ground  of  peace,  since  salvation  would  still 
be  entirely  uncertain  and  would  rest  upon  a  shifting  foun¬ 
dation.  Acquittal  and  acceptance  are  as  necessary  as  par¬ 
don  for  the  peace  of  justification. 

The  objection  is  raised  that  pardon  and  acquittal  are 
incompatible,  that  in  human  jurisprudence  if  a  man  is 
pardoned  he  is  not  acquitted  and  if  acquitted  he  needs 
no  pardon. 

The  cases  are  not  parallel.  In  human  tribunals  if  a 
criminal  is  pardoned  justice  is  not  exacted,  it  is  simply  set 
aside,  but  in  divine  government,  justice  cannot  be  set  aside, 
the  demands  of  the  law  can  never  be  abrogated  nor  even 
lowered.  God’s  problem  in  saving  man  was  to  be  just 
and  justify  the  sinner  at  the  same  time — see  Rom.  3:26. 

In  human  tribunals  acquittal  means  the  discharge  of 
the  innocent;  in  justification  it  means  the  discharge  of 
the  guilty.  Justice  must  be  done  and  pardon  extended; 
and  both  are  involved  in  the  justification  of  the  sinner, 
and  in  this  case  are  compatible. 

(b)  Proof. 

Is  this  a  true  conception  of  justification?  That  is  an 
important  question,  and  all  the  world  is  not  agreed  upon 
it.  That  this  is  the  Scriptural  view  of  justification  appears 
from  the  following  considerations: — 


SOTERIOLOGY 


293 


1st.  The  Greek  verb  dikaioo,  to  justify,  has  a  forensic 
or  judicial  sense  in  the  New  Testament.  Whatever  may 
be  true  in  the  classics,  the  New  Testament  usus  loquendi 
is  sufficiently  clear.  Observe  its  forensic  usage  and  the 
impossibility  of  a  subjective  sense  in  the  following  pas¬ 
sages  : — 

Matt.  11:19.  But  wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children. 

Matt.  12:37.  By  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified  and  by  thy 
words  thou  shalt  be  condemned. 

Lk.  7:29.  The  publicans  justified  God. 

Lk.  10:29.  But  he  willing  to  justify  himself  said: 

Lk.  16:15.  Ye  are  they  which  justify  yourselves  before  men. 

Acts  13:39.  By  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things 
from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses. 

Rom.  3:4.  That  thou  mightest  be  justified  in  thy  sayings. 

Rom.  3:28.  We  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  with¬ 
out  the  deeds  of  the  law. 

Gal.  2:16.  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works 
of  the  law  but  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  for  by  the  works  of  the 
law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified. 

Jas.  2:25.  Was  not  Rahab  the  harlot  justified  by  works  when 
she  had  received  the  messengers  and  had  sent  them  out  another  way? 

Old  Testament  passages  used  in  the  same  way: — 

Job  9:20.  If  I  justify,  tsadaq,  myself  my  own  mouth  shall 
condemn  me. 

Job  32:2.  Because  he  justified  himself  rather  than  God. 

Isa.  5:23.  Which  justify  the  wicked  for  reward. 

In  all  these  passages  the  word  justify  means  to  pro¬ 
nounce  righteous  or  to  acquit  and  not  to  make  inherently 
righteous  or  holy. 

2nd.  If  justify  were  used  in  the  subjective  sense  of 
making  holy,  then  it  would  be  possible  to  substitute  the 
word  “sanctify  for  justify  in  the  passages  where  dikaioo 
is  used. 

This  would  not  make  sense. 

3rd.  The  New  Testament  distinguishes  between  justi¬ 
fication  and  sanctification.  See  I  Cor.  6:11. 

4th.  The  word  justify  is  the  antithesis  of  condemn 
in  Rom.  8:33,  34.  It  is  God  that  Justifieth  who  is  he  that 
condemneth  ? 

As  condemn  does  not  mean  to  make  sinful,  so  to  justify 
is  not  to  make  holy. 


294 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Section  III.  The  ground  of  Justification. 

What  is  that  in  consideration  of  which  God  acquits  the 
sinner? 

1.  The  Roman  Catholic  says  that  while  faith  leads 
to  baptism  with  its  infused  grace,  the  final  ground  of  justi¬ 
fication  is  good  works. 

It  is  easy  to  see  what  an  imperfect  ground  of  acquittal 
this  is,  how  insufficient  for  assurance  and  peace,  and  how 
purgatory  is  a  natural  sequence  to  such  incompleteness. 

2.  The  older  Arminians  made  faith  the  ground  of 
justification.  They  taught  that  the  perfect  obedience  re¬ 
quired  by  the  law  is  set  aside  in  the  gospel  and  that  God 
is  pleased  to  take  our  faith  in  lieu  of  it,  or  to  count  our 
faith  in  the  room  of  righteousness. 

The  Wesleyan  Arminians  differ  somewhat  from  this. 
They  define  justification  to  mean  pardon,  and  this  pardon 
to  proceed  on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ; 
but  subsequent  acceptance  with  God  is  based  on  evangelical 
obedience,  or  obedience  of  faith. 

3.  The  view  of  the  “New  Theology”  may  be  fairly 
represented  by  Horace  Bushnell.  This  view  repudiates  all 
expiation  of  guilt  by  sacrifice,  all  substitution,  all  imputa¬ 
tion  of  Christ’s  righteousness  or  the  transfer  of  Christ’s 
merits  to  us.  A  man  is  justified,  using  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  acquittal,  on  the  ground  of  his  own  righteousness 
as  he  is  incited  to  a  righteous  life  by  the  example  and 
inspiration  of  Jesus  Christ.  Christ  is  in  the  world  to  be 
a  “power  on  character,”  and  thus  “invest  the  guilty  souls 
of  mankind  in  the  righteousness  of  God.”  “The  soul  when 
it  is  gained  to  faith,  is  brought  back,  according  to  the 
degree  of  faith,  into  its  original,  normal  relation  to  God; 
to  be  invested  with  God’s  light,  feeling,  character,  right¬ 
eousness,  and  live  derivately  (derivatively)  from  Him.” 

Justification  in  this  view  is  the  restoration  of  man 
to  his  normal  relation  of  faith  in  God,  but  the  ground  of 
his  acquittal  is  the  righteousness  inwrought  in  his  char¬ 
acter. 

4.  The  Reformed,  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  view  is 
that  we  are  justified  on  the  ground  of  the  imputed  right¬ 
eousness  of  Christ. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


295 


(a)  Statement. 

Our  Shorter  Catechism  says  God  “accepteth  us  as  right¬ 
eous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  im¬ 
puted  to  us.”  Christ  expiated  our  guilt,  satisfied  the  law, 
both  by  obedience  and  suffering,  became  our  substitute, 
so  that  being  united  to  him  by  faith,  his  death  becomes 
our  death,  his  righteousness  our  righteousness,  his  obedi¬ 
ence  our  obedience. 

God  acquits  us  not  for  anything  in  us,  not  for  anything 
so  imperfect  as  human  faith,  works,  or  merit,  but  for  the 
perfect  and  all  sufficient  righteousness  of  Christ  set  to  our 
account. 

Dr.  Shedd  remarks:  “Because  Christ  has  suffered  the 
penalty  for  the  believer,  he  is  pronounced  righteous  before 
the  law  in  respect  to  its  penalty;  and  is  entitled  to  release 
from  punishment.  Because  Christ  has  perfectly  obeyed 
the  law  for  him,  he  is  pronounced  righteous  before  the 
law  in  respect  to  its  precept;  and  is  entitled  to  the  reward 
promised  to  perfect  obedience.” 

This  affords  a  sure  ground  of  acquittal,  a  valid  basis 
for  assurance,  peace  and  joy.  Nothing  can  invalidate  a 
justification  based  on  a  perfect  righteousness. 

(b)  Proof. 

That  this  is  the  true  doctrine  appears  as  follows:  It 
is  proved  by  the  whole  system  of  substitutionary  sacrifices 
in  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  which  were  types  of 
Christ’s  atoning  death.  It  is  proved  by  all  those  passages 
which  speak  of  Christ  as  a  ransom,  a  substitute,  as  dying 
in  our  stead,  as  bearing  our  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust, 
made  sin  for  us,  made  a  curse  for  us,  etc.,  etc.  It  is  stated 
in: 

Isa.  53:5.  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon 
him  and  by  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 

Isa.  53:11.  By  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify 
many  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities. 

II  Cor.  5:21.  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us  who 
knew  no  sin;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him. 

Rom.  4:6.  Unto  whom  God  irnputeth  righteousness  without 
works. 

Rom.  5:18.  By  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men,  unto  justification  of  life. 

Rom.  5:19.  By  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  right¬ 


eous. 


296 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Phil.  3:9.  And  be  found  in  him  not  having  mine  own  righte¬ 
ousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of 
Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith. 

Col.  1:14.  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood. 
Col.  1:20.  — having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross. 

Col.  1:22.  In  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  present 
you  holy,  and  unblamable,  and  unreprovable  in  his  sight. 


Section  IV.  The  means,  condition,  or  instrumental 
cause  of  justification  is  faith. 

Faith  is  the  instrumental,  not  the  efficient  or  meritori¬ 
ous  cause  of  justification. 

Faith  is  the  link,  the  bond,  the  nexus  between  the 
believer  and  Christ.  Faith  is  not  the  ground  of  justifica¬ 
tion  because  the  believer’s  faith  is  an  imperfect  thing; 
it  expiates  no  guilt;  removes  no  penalty;  is  not  of  the  na¬ 
ture  of  an  atonement. 

But  faith  unites  us  to  Christ  and  union  with  Christ 
results  in  justification. 

Rom.  5:1.  Being  justified  by  faith. 

Phil.  3:9.  The  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith — “of  God” 
as  the  source;  “by  faith”  as  the  instrument. 

Rom.  3:28.  We  conclude  therefore  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law. 

Rom.  3:30.  — justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  uncircum¬ 

cision  through  faith. 

James  does  not  contradict  Paul  when  he  says, 

James  2:21.  Was  not  Abraham  our  father,  justified  by  works? 

James  2:24.  Ye  see  then  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified 
and  not  by  faith  only. 

James  is  not  discussing  the  nature  of  justification  but 
the  nature  of  true  faith.  He  is  opposing  anti-nomianism ; 
he  is  exposing  a  spurious  faith ;  he  is  showing  the  relation 
of  faith  and  works;  he  is  showing  that  we  are  justified 
only  by  such  faith  as  brings  forth  good  works.  A  work¬ 
ing  faith  as  against  a  dead  faith. 

We  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  but  not  by  a  faith 
that  is  alone. 

In  the  passages  Rom.  4:3,  and  James  2:23,  where  it 
is  said  that  Abraham’s  faith  was  counted  unto  him  for 
righteousness,  the  preposition  in  the  original  shows  that 
it  does  not  mean  faith  instead  of  righteousness  or  faith 
a  substitute  for  righteousness. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


297 


Section  V.  The  Effect  of  Justification. 

(a)  The  Roman  Catholic  believes  that  the  justifica¬ 
tion  that  results  from  baptism  restores  the  soul  to  its 
state  of  original  righteousness,  so  that  nothing  of  the  na¬ 
ture  of  sin  remains  in  the  soul.  However  the  soul  thus 
justified  is  not  indefectible,  but  is  liable  to  sin. 

(b)  The  Reformed  confessions  teach  that  justifica¬ 
tion  results  in: — 

Remission  of  sin. 

Acceptance  with  God. 

Title  to  eternal  life. 

Increase  of  grace  unto  sanctification. 

Peace  with  God.  “Being  justified  we  have  peace.” 
Whether  that  peace  is  subjective  in  the  experience  of  the 
believer,  or  objective  in  a  condition  of  peace  between  God 
and  man  or  both. 

Justification  includes  not  only  acquittal,  but  title  to 
reward.  As  Christ’s  death  acquits  of  penalty,  so  Christ’s 
obedience  confers  the  rewards  of  the  law.  Both  results 
must  be  included  in  the  effects  of  Justification. 

Moreover  good  works  follow  on  justification  as  the  re¬ 
sult  and  evidence  of  saving  faith. 


Section  VI.  Difficulties  and  Objections. 

(a)  To  pronounce  a  man  just  when  he  is  not  just  is 
to  empty  the  transaction  of  all  moral  value.  This  pro¬ 
ceeds  upon  the  ground  that  a  man  must  be  justified  on 
account  of  his  personal  holiness,  a  condition  which  no  man 
can  fulfill. 

It  is  Christ  who  meets  the  demands  of  the  law  and 
on  the  ground  of  his  righteousness  only  can  man  be  de¬ 
clared  just. 

But  the  moral  values  are  not  wanting,  for  justification 
is  inseparable  from  sanctification. 

While  Protestant  theology  distinguishes  between  what 
Christ  does  for  us  and  what  he  does  in  us,  the  two  are 
united  and  inseparable  in  fact.  The  relation  of  justification 
to  regeneration  and  sanctification  delivers  it  from  any 
charge  of  moral  emptiness  or  fictitious  proceedure.  Justi- 


298 


SOTERIOLOGY 


fication  is  possible  because  it  is  always  accompanied  by  re¬ 
generation,  and  union  with  Christ  and  is  followed  by  sancti¬ 
fication. 

(b)  How  is  acquittal  from  the  penalty  of  the  law 
consistent  with  remaining  and  actual  sin  in  heart  and  life 
which  would  seem  to  demand  a  penalty  for  each  trans¬ 
gression  ? 

It  is  the  promise  and  pledge  of  ultimate  victory  over 
sin.  Christ  bore  the  penalty  prospectively  as  well  as  other¬ 
wise  and  justification  has  a  prospective  force  toward  an 
end  not  yet  reached. 

The  grace  of  God  implanted,  and  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  vouchsafed  to  believers  will  dominate  and  ex¬ 
tirpate  the  remains  of  human  depravity.  It  must  be  writ¬ 
ten  large;  Justification  and  sanctification  are  inseparable. 


Chapter  XII.  Sanctification. 


Section  I.  Difference  between  Justification  and  Sancti¬ 
fication. 

1.  One  an  act;  the  other  a  work. 

2.  One  declaratory;  the  other  experiential. 

3.  One  done  for  us ;  the  other  done  in  us. 

4.  One  changes  our  relation  to  the  law;  the  other 
changes  our  character. 

5.  One  based  on  Christ’s  righteousness ;  other  the 
sequence  of  regeneration. 


Section  II.  Definition. 

1.  The  Greek  word  has  two  meanings,  to  purify;  to 
consecrate  or  set  apart. 

2.  Shorter  Catechism,  Question  35,  What  is  Sancti¬ 
fication  ? 

Sanctification  is  the  work  of  God’s  free  grace,  whereby 
we  are  renewed  in  the  whole  man  after  the  image  of  God, 

and  are  enabled  more  and  more  to  die  unto  sin,  and  live 
unto  righteousness. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


299 


Section  III.  A  supernatural  work. 

1.  Referred  to  God  as  agent. 

I  Thess.  5:28.  The  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly. 

Heb.  13:20,  21.  The  God  of  peace — make  you  perfect  in  every 
good  work,  etc. 

Titus  2:14.  He  gave  himself  that  he  might — purify  unto  him¬ 
self — a  people. 

Ephes.  5:26.  — that  he  might  sanctify  it,  and  cleanse  it. 

2.  We  are  taught  to  pray  for  sanctification. 

Ephes.  1:15 — 23.  (Paul  prays  for  their  sanctification.) 

3.  The  union  of  Christ  and  believers  shows  it. 

Jno.  15:4.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except 
it  abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye  except  ye  abide  in  me. 


Section  IY.  Agency  and  means. 

1.  God;  all  three  persons,  especially  the  Spirit. 

2.  Faith,  as  uniting  us  to  Christ. 

3.  Truth. 

Jno.  17:17.  Sanctify  them  by  thy  truth,  thy  word  is  truth. 

Acts  20:32.  The  word  of  his  grace  which  is  able  to  build  you  up. 

II  Tim.  3:15.  The  Holy  Scriptures  which  are  able  to  make  thee 
wise,  etc. 

Jas.  1:21.  The  implanted  word  which  is  able  to  save  your  souls. 

4.  All  the  means  of  grace. 

Shorter  Catechism  88.  What  are  the  outward  and 
ordinary  means  whereby  Christ  communicateth  unto  us 
the  benefits  of  redemption? 

The  outward  and  ordinary  means  whereby  Christ  com¬ 
municateth  to  us  the  benefits  of  redemption  are,  his  ordin¬ 
ances;  especially  the  word,  sacraments,  and  prayer;  all 
which  are  made  effectual  to  the  elect  for  salvation? 

Shorter  Catechism  89.  How  is  the  word  made  effectual 
to  salvation? 

The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the  reading,  but  especially 
the  preaching,  of  the  word,  an  effectual  means  of  con¬ 
vincing  and  converting  sinners,  and  of  building  them  up 
in  comfort  and  holiness  through  faith  unto  salvation. 

5.  Is  man  co-operative  in  sanctification? 

Shorter  Catechism  90.  How  is  the  word  to  be  read 
and  heard  that  it  may  become  effectual  to  salvation? 


300 


SOTERIOLOGY 


That  the  word  may  become  effectual  to  salvation,  we 
must  attend  thereunto  with  diligence,  preparation,  and 
prayer ;  receive  it  with  faith  and  love,  lay  it  up  in  our  hearts, 
and  practice  it  in  our  lives. 


Section  V.  Effect. 

1.  To  make  holy. 

2.  By  growth,  rather  than  instantaneously. 

Ephes.  2:21.  In  whom  all  the  building  fitly  framed  together 
groweth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord. 

I  Pet.  2:2.  As  newborn  babes,  desire  the  pure  milk  of  the  word, 
that  ye  may  grow  thereby. 

II  Pet.  3:18.  But  grow  in  grace 

3.  Perfected  at  death. 

Shorter  Catechism  37.  What  benefits  do  believers  re¬ 
ceive  from  Christ  at  death?  The  souls  of  believers  are  at 
their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately 
pass  into  glory;  and  their  bodies,  being  still  united  to 
Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves,  till  the  resurrection. 

Lk.  23:43.  Today  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise. 

Rev.  21:27.  And  there  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it  anything 
that  defileth  etc. 


Section  VI.  Perfectionism. 

1.  Pelagian  view. 

(a)  Man  suffered  no  real  loss  by  the  Fall. 

No  original  sin,  no  inherent  corruption,  no  loss  of  ability. 

Man  can  now  render  complete  obedience  to  the  law 
by  his  natural  powers  and  the  grace  of  Christ. 

(b)  Grace  is  the  goodness  of  God  in  giving  us  such 
ability,  example  and  precepts  of  Christ,  natural  environ¬ 
ment,  and  natural  influence  of  the  truth. 

(c)  Sin  is  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law. 

(d)  God  cannot  demand  what  man  is  not  able  to  do. 

(e)  Man  can  do  all  that  God  requires;  therefore  can 
live  perfectly. 

Observe: — Based  on  denial  of  any  real  fall,  and  on 
a  wrong  conception  of  sin. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


301 


2.  Romish  view. 

(a)  Baptism  cleanses  from  all  sin,  yet  liable  to  fall 
into  sin  again. 

But  there  are  two  kinds  of  sins;  mortal,  and  venial. 

Man  by  grace  may  avoid  mortal  sin;  but  never  free 
from  venial  sins. 

(b)  The  law  which  men  may  keep  is  not  the  law 
in  all  its  strictness  but  the  law  which  man  is  capable  of 
keeping;  for  God  cannot  justly  demand  more  than  man 
can  do,  or  what  is  due  from  man  in  his  present  circum¬ 
stances. 

(c)  They  distinguish  between  positive  precepts  and 
counsels  of  Christ. 

May  do  some  things  not  required  for  salvation,  thus 
do  works  of  supererogation,  and  lay  up  a  reservoir  of  merit 
from  which  the  church  may  draw  for  others’  benefit. 

3.  Arminian  View,  Wesleyan. 

(a)  The  law  that  man  can  keep  is  not  the  original 
law  of  perfect  obedience  not  the  original  moral  law;  but 
a  law  suited  to  the  debilitated  state  of  man  since  the  fall, 
called  the  law  of  Christ. 

(b)  Sin.  All  imperfection  is  not  sin. 

Wesley  says:  “Some  deviations  and  transgressions  need 
atonement;  but  are  not  sin.  I  do  not  call  these  sin.” 

Observe:  If  not  sin  they  need  no  atonement. 

(c)  Such  perfection  as  is  claimed  is  attributed,  proper¬ 
ly  enough,  to  supernatural  grace. 

Observe  the  weak  points  in  the  above. 

(1)  Some  misinterpret  texts  e.  g.  I  Jno.  3:9. 

(2)  Some  unduly  exalt  human  ability. 

(3)  All  minimize  the  nature  of  sin. 

(4)  All  lower  the  demands  of  the  law. 

Illustration.  Difference  between  Perfectionist  and 
others. 

One  rears  a  ladder  100  feet,  climbs  to  the  top,  and  says : 
I  have  reached  the  top. 


302 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Another  rears  his  ladder  to  infinity,  climbs  100  feet 
and  says:  I’m  not  to  the  top  yet.  Climbs  1000  feet  and 
says:  I’m  not  to  the  top  yet. 

4.  True  View. 

(a)  Imperfect  in  this  life. 

Cat.  82.  Is  any  man  able  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments 
of  God? 

Rom.  7:15—25. 

I  Jno.  1:8.  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin  we  deceive  ourselves,  etc. 

Prayer  of  every  man  should  be:  God  be  merciful  to 
me  a  sinner,  e.  g.  Paul. 

(b)  All  unrighteousness  is  sin.  Cat.  14. 

(c)  The  fall  destroyed  man’s  ability;  but  not  his  obli¬ 
gation. 

(d)  God’s  law  is  absolute  perfection,  and  there  can 
be  no  lowering  of  it. 

Matt.  5:48.  Mk.  12:30,  31.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  etc. 

Can  we  do  it?  No.  Law  drives  us  to  Christ — is  a 
school-master. 

(e)  Practical  duty,  not  discourage  effort,  strive  for 
holiness.  Without  holiness  no  man,  etc.  Can’t  get  holy 
too  much;  nor  too  soon. 


Chapter  XIII.  Perseverance. 


Section  I.  Statement. 

1.  Cat.  36.  What  are  the  benefits  which  accompany 
or  flow,  etc. 

2.  Conf.  of  Faith.  They  whom  God  hath  accepted 
in  his  beloved,  effectively  called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit, 
can  neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of 
grace;  but  shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end  and 
be  eternally  saved. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


303 


Section  II.  Proof. 

1.  Proof  from  the  Scriptures. 

Jno.  10:28,  29.  They  shall  never  perish,  etc. 

Rom.  11:29.  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without 
repentance. 

Phil.  1:6.  He  who  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perfect 
it  unto  the  day  of  Christ. 

I  Pet.  1:5.  Who  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith 
unto  salvation. 

2.  A  necessary  inference  from  the  doctrine  of  election. 

Rom.  8:30.  Whom  he  did  predestinate  them  he  also  called,  etc. 

Even  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  election  on  the  ground 
of  foreseen  faith  requires  perseverance  in  faith  of  all  the 
elect.  They  must  posit  the  perseverance  of  the  faith  be¬ 
fore  they  posit  the  election  for  that  is  their  ground  of 
election. 

3.  It  is  implied  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  which  the 
Father  gave  a  people  to  his  Son, 

Jno.  17:6.  — the  men  that  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the  world, 

thine  they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  me;  and  they  have  kept  thy 
word. 


4.  Implied  in  the  union  of  Christ  and  believers. 

Rom.  8:1.  There  is  now  no  condemnation  etc. 

Rom.  8:35.  What  shall  separate  us?  etc. 

5.  Implied  in  the  Atonement. 

Christ  purchased  his  people. 

Matt.  20:28.  --gave  his  life  a  ransom. 


Section  III.  Objections. 

Ezek.  18:25.  When  the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his  righte¬ 
ousness. 

Matt.  13:20,  21.  Stony  ground. 

Heb.  6:4 — 6.  — impossible — if  they  fall  away  to  renew  them 

again  unto  repentance. 

Heb.  10:26.  If  sin  wilfully  no  longer  a  sin-offering. 

I  Cor.  9:27.  Lest  I  myself  should  be  a  castaway. 

Section  IV.  Answer  to  Objections. 

1.  Some  of  these  statements  may  refer  to  those  not 
regenerate. 


304 


SOTERIOLOGY 


2.  Some  are  hypothetical  warnings  to  prevent  back¬ 
sliding  or  to  show  the  dreadful  guilt  and  danger  of  neglect¬ 
ing  truth  and  common  grace. 

3.  Even  the  regenerate  may  backslide  for  a  time, 
without  being  lost. 


Chapter  XIY.  The  Sacraments. 


Section  I.  Definition. 

Shorter  Catechism  92,  What  is  a  Sacrament  ?  A  sacra¬ 
ment  is  a  holy  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ;  wherein,  by 
sensible  signs,  Christ  and  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant 
are  represented,  sealed,  and  applied  to  believers. 

For  early  Christians  we  may  assume  a  knowledge  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  verbal  instruction  from  Christ  and 
the  apostles.  When  baptism  was  practiced  so  extensively 
by  John  the  Baptist,  Christ,  and  the  apostles,,  it  would  not 
be  unaccompanied  with  suitable  instruction. 

Section  II.  Efficacy  of  the  Sacraments. 

1.  Roman  View. 

(a)  The  sacraments  contain  the  grace  which  they 
signify. 

(b)  They  convey  that  grace  “ex  opere  operato.” 

The  sacraments  are  charged  or  loaded  with  grace,  and 
administered  by  an  authorized  celebrant  must  convey  the 
grace  inherent  in  them. 

The  administrator  must  intend  to  produce  the  effect 
which  the  sacrament  is  designed  to  accomplish. 

2.  The  Lutheran  View. 

(a)  Faith  on  the  part  of  the  recipient  is  a  necessity. 

Yet  faith  is  not  the  power  in  the  sacrament;  e.  g.  dry 
wood  burns  with  great  power,  yet  dryness  is  not  the  power 
that  burns  the  wood. 

The  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood  must  have  faith, 
yet  her  faith  was  not  the  efficient  cause  of  her  healing. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


305 


(b)  The  virtue  of  the  sacrament  is  inherent  in  itself. 

Consubstantiation  is  held  in  regard  to  the  elements; 
that  is,  that  Christ’s  glorified  humanity  is  in,  with,  and 
under  the  bread  and  wine,  in  the  Lord’s  Supper. 

3.  The  Zwinglian  View. 

(a)  The  sacraments  are  memorials ;  like  the  rainbow, 
or  the  pile  of  stones  on  the  bank  of  the  Jordan. 

(b)  They  are  badges  of  men’s  profession. 

(c)  They  are  not  means  of  grace  in  any  special  sense. 
However  it  is  said  that  Zwingli  has  been  misunderstood 
in  regard  to  this. 

4.  The  Calvinistic  View. 

(a)  The  sacraments  are  symbols  of  truth,  or  of  the 
facts  of  redemption. 

The  Catechism  says  they  “represent.” 

(b)  They  are  signs  and  seals  of  a  covenant.  They 
“seal.” 

(c)  They  are  channels  of  grace.  They  “apply.” 

(d)  The  efficacy  is  not  in  them,  nor  in  the  adminis¬ 
trator,  but  through  them  the  Spirit  conveys  grace  to  them 
who  exercise  true  faith. 

Catechism  91,  How  do  the  sacraments  become  effectual 
means  of  salvation? 

The  sacraments  become  effectual  means  to  salvation, 
not  by  any  virtue  in  them,  nor  in  him  that  doth  administer 
them;  but  only  by  the  blessing  of  Christ  and  the  working 
of  his  Spirit  in  them  that  by  faith  receive  them. 


Section  III.  The  number  of  the  sacraments. 

There  are  but  two  sacraments,  Baptism,  and  the  Lord’s 
Supper. 

The  Roman  church  makes  seven :  Baptism,  Lord’s  Sup¬ 
per,  Confirmation,  Orders,  Marriage,  Penance  including  ab¬ 
solution,  and  Extreme  Unction. 


306 


SOTERIOLOGY 

Section  IV.  Baptism. 

Shorter  Catechism  94,  What  is  Baptism?  Baptism  is 
a  sacrament,  wherein  the  washing  with  water,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
doth  signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting  into  Christ,  and  par¬ 
taking  of  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  our 
engagement  to  be  the  Lord’s. 

1.  Mode. — Immersion,  or  sprinkling. 

The  classical  usage  of  the  word  “Baptizo”  often  ex¬ 
presses  immersion  but  not  always  so. 

The  word  is  used  about  90  times  in  the  New  Testament 
and  has  therefore  a  New  Testament  usage. 

(a)  Passages  in  which  it  may  mean  to  dip. 

Lk.  16:24.  — dip  the  tip  of  the  finger. 

Jno.  13:26.  — dipped  a  sop. 

Mk.  7:4.  Washing  pots,  cups,  and  vessels,  however  the  same 
passage  mentions  couches  or  tables,  and  even  themselves  where 
dipping  is  evidently  out  of  the  question. 

(b)  Passages  that  are  doubtful. 

Matt.  3:16.  — away  from  (apo)  the  water. 

Acts  8:38,  39.  — into  (eis)  the  water:  and  out  of  (ek)  the  water. 

Matt.  3:11.  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water;  but  he  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire. 

Rom.  6:4.  Buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death. 

Col.  2:12.  Buried  with  him  in  baptism. 

(c)  Passages  where  immersion  is  most  improbable. 

Acts  2:41.  — were  baptized  about  3000  souls. 

Acts  9:17,  18.  Paul  arose  and  was  baptized. 

Acts  16:38.  The  jailer  of  Philippi. 

Acts  10:47,  48.  Cornelius  and  all  in  his  house. 

I  Cor.  10:1,  2.  Moses  and  Israel  in  the  sea. 

Old  Testament  purifications  were  seldom  by  dipping 
but  usually  by  sprinkling,  as  on  the  Mercy  Seat,  and  on 
the  door  posts,  etc. 

Early  baptismal  fonts  have  been  found  and  they  are 
too  small  for  baptism  by  immersion. 

2.  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

Catechism  95.  To  whom  is  baptism  to  be  administer¬ 
ed?  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that  are  out 
of  the  visible  Church,  till  they  confess  their  faith  in  Christ, 
and  obedience  to  him;  but  the  infants  of  such  as  are  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  visible  Church,  are  to  be  baptized. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


307 


(a)  Adults, — who  profess  faith  and  promise  obedi¬ 
ence. 

(b)  Infants  of  professing  believers. 

Must  they  be  church  members? 

Rome  baptizes  all  as  being  necessary  to  salvation. 

3.  Proof  of  infant  baptism. 

(a)  Old  Testament  covenant  included  infants.  See 
God’s  covenant  with  Abraham,  Genesis  17 :7 — 11. 

(b)  The  church  is  one  and  the  same  in  all  dispensa¬ 
tions  and  if  infants  were  included  in  the  old  covenant,  they 
must  be  now. 

(c)  Whole  households  were  baptized. 

Acts  16:15.  Household  of  Lydia. 

Acts  16:33.  Jailer  of  Philippi  and  all  his. 

I  Cor.  1:16.  Paul  baptized  the  household  of  Stephanos. 

<d)  Tertullian  and  Origen  speak  of  infant  baptism 
as  the  prevailing  usage  of  the  church  and  as  having  been 
practiced  from  the  beginning. 

(e)  As  children  need  and  are  capable  of  receiving 
the  benefit  of  redemption  they  may  receive  the  signs  of 
the  same. 

(f)  The  covenants  of  the  parents  involve  the  child¬ 
ren. 

4.  Efficacy  of  Baptism. 

(a)  Roman  view.  Efficacious  unto  salvation.  A  sine 
qua  non. 

(b)  Anglican  view.  Baptismal  Regeneration. 

(c)  Lutheran  view.  Efficacious  if  unresisted.  In¬ 
fants  are  incapable  of  resisting,  and  baptism  efficacious  to 
them;  but  may  be  forfeited  by  neglect,  unbelief,  or  bad 
conduct  in  after  life. 

(d)  Calvinistic  and  Reformed  view.  Sign  and  seal 
of  a  covenant. 

The  important  thing  is  the  covenant. 


308 


SOTERIOLOGY 


Section  V.  The  Lord’s  Supper. 

1.  The  elements. 

(a)  Romish  view.  Transubstantiation.  The  bread 
becomes  flesh  and  the  wine  becomes  blood  by  the  consecra¬ 
tion  by  the  priest. 

Remain  permanently  so. 

Has  the  appearance  of  bread,  but  the  senses  not  quali¬ 
fied  to  judge.  Communication  in  one  element, — bread. 

Must  be  unleavened  bread. 

The  whole  Christ  is  in  every  atom  in  the  elements, 
so  that  the  bread  in  itself  conveys  both  flesh  and  blood. 

The  soul  is  inseparable  from  the  body,  and  the  divinity 
from  the  soul;  so  that  partaking  of  the  body  is  partaking 
of  Christ. 

(b)  The  Lutheran  view. 

Consubstantiation.  This  is  temporary;  confined  to  the 
sacramental  occasion.  Afterwards  the  elements  are  com¬ 
mon  bread  and  wine. 

The  glorified  body  of  Christ  partakes  of  the  infinity 
and  omnipresence  of  his  divine  nature,  so  everywhere  pres¬ 
ent  and  inexhaustible. 

The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  may  thus  be  received 
by  believer  and  unbeliever  alike,  but  of  benefit  only  to  the 
former. 

(c)  The  Reformed  view. 

The  elements  are  simply  bread  and  wine. 

They  represent  the  body  and  blood  in  a  symbolical  way. 

The  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  is  not  in  the 
elements  but  in  the  heart  of  the  believer. 

Partaking  of  the  bread  and  wine  signifies  spiritual  par¬ 
ticipation  in  the  benefits  of  Christ’s  death  or  atonement. 

2.  The  nature  of  the  Lord’s  Supper. 

(a)  Romish  view.  The  Lord’s  Supper  is  both  a  sacra¬ 
ment  and  a  sacrifice.  As  a  sacrament,  opere  operato,  it 
nourishes  the  soul  by  the  actual  substance  of  Christ  eaten 
and  drunk. 

As  a  sacrifice  Christ  is  really  offered  anew  for  the 
expiation  of  sin ;  thus  repeating  the  work  done  on  the  cross. 


SOTERIOLOGY 


309 


(b)  Reformed  View. 

Shorter  Catechism  96,  What  is  the  Lord’s  Supper? 

The  Lord’s  Supper  is  a  sacrament,  wherein,  by  giving 
and  receiving  bread  and  wine,  according  to  Christ’s  appoint¬ 
ment,  his  death  is  showed  forth;  and  the  worthy  receivers 
are,  not  after  a  corporal  and  carnal  manner,  but  by  faith, 
made  partakers  of  his  body  and  blood,  with  all  his  bene¬ 
fits  to  their  spiritual  nourishment,  and  growth  in  grace. 

The  Lord’s  Supper  is  a  memorial;  also  a  badge  of 
profession;  and  further  exhibits  the  great  facts  of  the 
atonement  in  Christ’s  death. 

The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not  received  cor¬ 
poreally;  but  what  Christ  did  by  his  body  and  blood  is 
received  by  those  who  partake  in  faith.  The  sacrament 
signifies,  seals,  and  conveys  the  benefits  of  redemption. 
Participation  is  a  profession  and  renewal  of  covenant  vows 
with  Christ.  It  is  therefore  a  solemn  and  vital  act.  Paul 
says:  He  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily  eateth  and 
drinketh  judgment  to  himself. 


PART  FIFTH.  ESCHATOLOGY. 


Index  Page. 

Chapter  I.  The  Immortality  of  the  Soul. 

Section  I.  Denials  of  Immortality. 

Section  II.  Proof  of  Immortality. 

Section  III.  Conditional  Immortality. 

Chapter  II.  The  State  of  the  Soul  Immediately  after 

Death. 

Chapter  III.  The  Resurrection  of  the  Body. 

Section  I.  Proof  from  General  Considerations. 
Section  II.  Proof  from  Christ’s  Resurrection. 
Section  III.  The  Joy  of  the  Resurrection. 

Chapter  IV.  The  Identity  of  the  Resurrection  Body. 
Chapter  V.  The  Second  Advent. 


Section 

I. 

A  Matter  of  Prophecy. 

Section 

II. 

Christ  Will  Come  Again. 

Section 

III. 

Events  that  will  Precede  the  Second 
Coming. 

Section 

IV. 

Events  that  will  Accompany  the  Second 
Coming. 

Section 

V. 

Premillennialism. 

Section 

VI. 

Postmillennialism. 

Section 

VII. 

Christ  Already  Come  and  Always  Pres¬ 
ent. 

Section  VIII. 

The  Non-millennial  View. 

Chapter  VI.  Future  Punishment. 

Chapter  VII.  Second  Probation. 

Chapter  VIII.  Heaven. 

Appendix  D.  The  Man  of  Sin. 

Appendix  E.  Fixing  the  Date  of  Christ’s  Return. 


—310— 


PART  FIFTH.  ESCHATOLOGY. 


Eschatology  is  the  doctrine  of  last  things.  We  em¬ 
brace  this  subject  in  the  following  eight  chapters. 

Chapter  I.  The  Immortality  of  the  Soul. 


Section  I.  Denials  of  Immortality.  Denial  of  immor¬ 
tality  has  had  significantly  little  effect  on  the  belief  of 
mankind.  It  is  sometimes  due  to  mere  perversity  of  na¬ 
ture  on  the  part  of  the  ignorant  and  degraded;  but  is 
usually  due  to  the  preoccupation  of  some  false  philosophy. 

Materialism  denies  the  immortality  of  the  soul  since 
it  denies  the  existence  of  the  soul.  In  materialistic  phil¬ 
osophy  all  attributes  of  mind  are  conceived  of  as  properties 
of  matter.  There  is  no  immaterial  substance.  All  exhi¬ 
bitions  of  thought,  feeling,  etc.,  are  but  functions  of  mat¬ 
ter  due  to  its  chemical  structure  and  the  arrangement  of 
its  atoms.  When  therefore  the  body  dissolves,  all  functions 
of  thought,  consciousness,  feeling,  etc.,  cease  to  be.  For 
this  reason  all  materialistic  philosophy  has  proved  destruc¬ 
tive  of  religion  and  morality. 

Pantheism  also  denies  any  proper  immortality.  All 
the  immortality  it  admits  is  the  continuance  of  the  race. 
All  individuality  loses  itself  in  the  reservoir  of  being  out 
of  which  it  arose.  There  is  no  personal  existence  after 
death.  Pantheism  for  this  reason,  like  Materialism,  is  an 
enemy  of  moral  conduct  in  the  world. 

Section  II.  Proof. 

1.  The  analogical  argument. 

The  metamorphosis  of  the  chrysalis,  the  rejuvenation 
of  the  earth  after  winter,  the  germination  of  the  buried 
seed,  and  such  suggestive  facts  in  nature  become  analogical 
bases  for  belief  in  tne  immortality  of  the  soul. 

2.  Life’s  aim  is  only  partly  attained  here,  and  im¬ 
mortality  is  necessary  to  its  completion.  Every  normal 
man  instinctively  feels  that  life  is  too  short  and  circum¬ 
scribed  to  be  the  end  of  his  endowments  and  aspirations. 
What  soul,  fired  with  the  passion  of  an  immeasurable  as¬ 
piration,  has  not  cried  out  with  the  dying  alchemist: 


—311— 


312 


ESCHATOLOGY 


“Oh,  but  for  time  to  track 

The  upper  stars  into  the  pathless  sky, 

To  see  the  invisible  spirits  eye  to  eye, 

To  hurl  the  lightning  back, 

To  tread  unhurt  the  sea’s  dim-lighted  halls, 

To  chase  Day’s  chariot  to  the  horizon-walls! 

“Yet  thus  to  pass  away! 

To  live  but  for  a  hope  that  mocks  at  last; 

To  agonize,  to  strive,  to  watch,  to  last, 

To  waste  the  light  of  day, 

Night’s  better  beauty,  feeling,  fancy,  thought, 

All  that  we  have  and  are,  for  this — for  naught!” 

Who,  in  the  passion  of  his  soul,  has  not  reiterated 
such  a  thought  and  declared  that  being  would  be  a  mockery 
if  there  be  no  immortality?  This  intense  conviction  of  the 
universal  human  heart  means  much. 

3.  Virtue  must  be  rewarded  and  sin  punished.  The 
just  deserts  of  all  are  not  manifest  here,  and  hence  the 
moral  necessity  of  another  life. 

4.  The  consent  of  all  people  is  given  to  this  doctrine 
comparatively  speaking.  The  belief  in  immortality  is  an 
age-long  and  world-wide  belief.  What  practically  the  whole 
human  race  believes  cannot  be  lightly  set  aside. 

5.  Non-Christian  Religions. 

(a)  Fetishism,  perhaps  the  lowest  of  all  religions, 
possesses  a  belief  in  the  survival  of  the  human  spirit;  also 
a  belief  in  evil  spirits  against  whom  their  charms  were 
a  supposed  protection. 

(b)  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  religion. 

In  the  old  Accadian  literature  there  are  many  hymns, 
some  of  them  penitential  like  the  Psalms.  These  are  a 
thousand  years  older  than  the  Psalms  and  reveal  a  belief 
in  immortality. 

The  lay  of  Istar’s  descent  into  Hades  has  definite  bear¬ 
ing  on  this  question.  Istar’s  husband  or  paramour  was 
a  beautiful  young  shepherd  and  was  killed  by  a  wild  boar. 
Istar  in  her  love  ana  grief  descended  into  Hades  to  seek 
Damuzi  her  lost  lover.  After  varied  experiences  in  the 
land  of  shades  she  obtained  consent  for  Damuzi  to  revisit 


ESCHATOLOGY 


313 


the  earth  at  certain  intervals.  There  grew  up  a  yearly 
festival  for  Damuzi  continuing  through  many  centuries  and 
extending  to  many  lands;  but  associated  with  such  licen¬ 
tious  practices  that  eventually  led  to  its  suppression.  A  ref¬ 
erence  to  it  is  found  in  Ezek.  8:14. 

The  epic  of  Isdubar  or  Gilgames  was  much  like  the 
former  in  a  search  for  a  lover  in  a  lower  world.  In  these 
wanderings  the  story  of  the  Deluge  was  heard  and  retold. 
Whether  this  literature  is  legendary  or  historical  at  least 
it  bears  witness  to  the  belief  in  immortality  on  the  part  of 
those  who  wrote  and  read  it. 

(c)  Egyptian  religion.  Some  of  the  oldest  literature 
of  the  world  comes  to  us  in  the  Egyptian  “Book  of  the 
Dead.”  Part  of  it  is  found  on  papyrus  rolls  recovered  from 
the  tombs;  in  inscriptions  on  statues  and  monuments;  and 
on  mummy-wrappings.  This  Book  of  the  Dead  has  been 
called,  by  Champollion  and  others,  a  Funeral  Ritual.  It 
gives  abundant  evidence  of  a  belief  in  immortality.  The 
term  usually  applied  to  the  departed  designates  them  as 
“the  living.”  The  title  given  to  the  coffin  is  “the  chest 
of  the  living.” 

Descriptions  of  the  life  beyond  are  realistic;  and  direc¬ 
tions  are  given  to  attain  to  the  blessedness  desired.  The 
abode  and  punishments  of  the  wicked  are  also  described 
in  quite  as  vivid  terms.  Prayers  for  the  good  of  the  soul 
in  the  other  world  were  found  inscribed  on  the  stelse  or 
tombstone  of  a  priest  of  the  second  dynasty.  This  is  not¬ 
able  for  the  extreme  antiquity  of  the  inscription. 

There  is  much  ancient  Egyptian  literature;  and  the 
sources  of  information  are  abundant ;  and  there  is  no  doubt 
of  their  belief  in  a  life  beyond  the  grave.  The  preserva¬ 
tion  of  the  bodies  of  the  dead,  by  processes  of  embalming, 
is  also  thought  to  be  in  view  of  their  future  life  and  activ¬ 
ity. 

(d)  Hinduism  or  Brahminism. 

As  far  back  as  records  carry  us  the  Hindu  is  seen  to 
be  a  believer  in  an  after-existence. 

Ten  to  fifteen  centuries  before  Christ,  Indian  civili¬ 
zation  was  already  far  advanced;  and  the  Rig- Veda,  which 
takes  us  back  all  that  distance,  makes  clear  the  Hindu 
belief  in  immortality. 


314 


ESCHATOLOGY 


The  Rig-Veda  embraces  over  a  thousand  hymns,  and 
the  oldest  of  them  make  plain  that  the  Hindu  held  fast 
to  a  faith  in  immortality,  or  an  unseen  state  of  being  into 
which  his  fathers  had  gone,  and  which  he  craved  for  him¬ 
self  as  a  boon  from  the  gods.  This  immortal  place  he  hoped 
to  gain  by  ceremonial  rites,  by  offerings  and  sacrifices; 
and  conceived  of  it  as  going  to  the  gods  and  enjoying  fel¬ 
lowship  with  them. 

The  earlier  beliefs  suffered  some  change  as  time  went 
on  and  are  seen,  in  the  Upanishads,  to  be  developed  into 
a  doctrine  of  transmigration,  the  highest  goal  of  which  is 
union  with  Brahma. 

A  later  development  of  Hindu  religion  was  Buddhism, 
which  has  played  such  a  large  and  strange  part  in  the 
religious  life  of  India,  and  in  which  the  final  goal  is  not 
union  with  Brahma,  but  Nirvana. 

(e)  Buddhism. 

Some  say  that  Buddhism  was  a  development  from 
Brahminism,  while  others  regard  it  as  a  reaction  and  re¬ 
bellion  against  the  extreme  sacrificial  ritual  of  Brahminism. 

At  any  rate  it  continued  the  belief  in  an  after-exist¬ 
ence;  but  introduced  the  idea  that  all  being  is  transient. 
Union  with  Brahm  is  not  final,  and  would  result  again  in 
rebirth.  Neither  creature  nor  Creator  has  any  permanen¬ 
cy;  all  being  is  only  temporary  and  transient.  The  gods 
and  their  heavens  are  no  more  eternal  than  man  and  his 
earth;  gods  and  men  equally  pass  away,  and  the  goal  is 
extinction  or  Nirvana. 

Buddhism  had  its  heavens  and  hells  along  the  path¬ 
way  of  transmigration;  but  these  also  were  at  last  to  pass 
away. 

Weariness  of  life  was  one  of  the  exciting  causes  of 
this  doctrinal  development,  the  only  relief  from  which  was 
conceived  to  be  extinction.  Absolute  extinction  was  the 
only  alternative  Buddhism  had  to  offer  to  the  weariness 
of  human  existence.  It  thus  stands  at  the  antipodes  of 
the  Christian  religion.  Christianity  offers  the  blessedness 
of  eternal  life;  Buddhism  offers  what  it  calls  the  blessed¬ 
ness  of  extinction. 

(f)  Zoroastrianism  or  the  Persian  religion. 

The  old  Persian  religion  has  mostly  passed  away.  Con¬ 
quered  Persia  became  Mohammedan.  But  the  old  faith 
lingers  among  the  Parsis  of  India,  a  very  few  remaining 


ESCHATOLOGY 


315 


in  Persia.  It  has  elements  so  familiar  to  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  that  some  think  our  Scriptures  are  indebted 
to  Persian  thought.  The  two  sacred  books  are  the  earlier 
Avesta  and  the  later  Bundehesh.  Here  we  find  very  clear 
ideas  of  future  retribution  and  a  profound  conception  of 
good  and  guilt. 

There  is  a  spirit  or  divinity  of  good  called  Ahura- 
mazda  or  Ormuzd,  and  a  spirit  of  evil  called  Ahriman. 
Each  is  from  eternity,  each  has  creative  powers,  but 
the  might  of  Ahriman  is  limited  and  his  dominion  is  not 
eternal  a  parte  post.  The  history  of  the  world  is  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  antagonism  between  these  two. 

When  a  man  dies  his  soul  comes  to  the  bridge  of 
Chinvat  or  the  Accountant.  For  three  days  good  and  evil 
spirits,  paradise  and  hell,  strive  for  the  possession  of  his 
spirit.  Then  the  record  of  his  life  is  summed  up.  Three 
destinies  lie  before  him.  If  more  good  than  evil  is  found 
in  his  life  he  goes  his  way  to  paradise,  the  abode  of  song 
and  the  dwelling  place  of  Ahura-mazda.  If  his  life  has 
been  prevailingly  evil  he  sinks  into  the  abyss  of  darkness 
and  woe  where  evil  spirits  dwell.  If  the  good  and  evil 
are  a  tie,  judgment  is  suspended  till  the  decision  of  the  last 
day,  in  the  meantime  he  awaited  the  decision  in  an  inter¬ 
mediate  place., 

The  religion  of  Persia  had  a  large  prophetical  element 
and  looked  forward  to  a  time  of  ultimate  triumph  of  the 
good.  There  were  the  doctrines  of  the  coming  of  a  great 
prophet  or  saviour;  the  resurrection  of  the  dead;  millen¬ 
nial  stages  in  the  final  story  of  the  earth,  and  in  the  end 
a  general  restoration. 

Ahriman  was  to  triumph  for  a  time  but  was  to  be 
followed  by  the  advent  of  Sosioch,  or  saviour,  conqueror 
and  judge.  Then  the  dead  were  to  be  raised,  which  process 
was  to  occupy  fifty-seven  years.  With  this  the  general 
judgment  was  to  occur  with  the  separation  of  the  evil 
from  the  good.  There  were  purgatorial  fires  in  which  all 
the  wicked  should  perish  except  Ahriman  and  the  serpent 
Azhi.  Finally  they  too  would  be  destroyed  by  Ahura- 
mazda;  hell  itself  would  be  purged  and  the  earth  purified 
by  fire. 

Much  absurdity  and  puerility  were  mingled  with  these 
great  doctrines.  Immortality  was  a  prominent  subject,  but 
was  regarded  as  a  gift  contained  in  a  certain  drink.  Some 
accounts  give  strange  qualities  to  the  bridge  of  Chinvat. 


316 


ESCHATOLOGY 


It  was  supposed  to  extend  across  hell  and  to  lead  to  para¬ 
dise;  to  widen  to  the  length  of  nine  javelins  for  the  souls 
of  the  pious,  and  to  contract  to  a  thread  for  the  souls  of 
the  wicked,  so  that  they  fall  off  into  hell. 

Most  puerile  ideas  were  entertained  concerning  the  cut¬ 
off  hair  and  finger  nails  as  falling  into  the  hands  of  the 
Devil;  and  the  most  deadly  deed  a  man  could  commit  was 
to  let  these  fragments  of  human  offal  drop  into  a  hole 
or  a  crack. 

(g)  Greek  religion. 

The  Greeks  left  a  rich  and  copious  literature  easily 
read  and  understood  and  their  religious  ideas  are  recognized 
with  fair  perspicuity.  Homer’s  Iliad  and  Odyssey  are  full 
of  the  gods  and  a  future  life.  Homer  was  polytheistic 
while  Plato  was  monotheistic;  but  this  polytheism  trans¬ 
cended  the  ordinary  type  by  having  one  great  god  Zeus 
on  whom  all  other  gods  depended.  The  Greeks  loved  life. 
Death  was  not  the  end  of  a  man.  Though  that  life  be¬ 
yond  was  shadowy  it  was  real,  and  extinction  was  not 
congenial  to  the  Greek  mind.  When  a  man  dies  his  soul 
flies  away  out  of  the  mouth  or  open  wound  and  exists  in 
the  other  world.  Early  views  of  Hades  were  very  gloomy; 
life  being  only  an  attenuated  edition  of  earthly  existence, 
stripped  of  glory  and  robbed  of  power  and  minus  moral 
awards.  Pindar,  Socrates  and  Plato  climaxed  Grecian 
thought  as  to  the  nature  of  the  soul,  and  Plato  especially 
as  to  immortality  and  retribution.  Aristotle  largely  ig¬ 
nored  immortality  or  left  it  so  indeterminate  that  his  posi¬ 
tion  is  doubtful.  The  lofty  conceptions  of  poets  and  phi¬ 
losophers  were  not  always  represented  in  the  common  faith 
of  the  day,  yet  certain  rites  and  ceremonies  and  inscrip¬ 
tions  showed  a  common  belief  in  a  future  life  and  the  sur¬ 
vival  of  the  departed. 

Greek  burial  rites  and  monumental  decorations  ex¬ 
press  belief  in  immortality,  e.  g.  the  coin  in  the  mouth 
of  the  dead  to  pay  his  fare  over  the  mystic  river,  the  carved 
flame  ascending  heavenward,  the  fadeless  wreath. 

(h)  Chinese  religion,  antedates  Confucius,  who  modi¬ 
fied  it  somewhat,  rites  express  belief  in  immortality;  burn 
paper  utensils,  etc. 

(i)  North  American  Indians.  Belief  in  happy  hunt¬ 
ing  ground;  burial  of  bows,  arrows,  axes,  canoes,  etc. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


317 


6.  Revealed  Religion. 

(a)  The  Hebrews  had  even  clearer  views  of  immor¬ 
tality  than  the  nations  round  about  them.  It  is  some¬ 
times  said  that  the  Old  Testament  conceives  of  rewards 
and  punishments  as  bestowed  in  this  world.  True,  but 
we  find  here  a  view  of  another  life  as  well.  The  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  speaks  of  the  dead  being  gathered  to  their  fathers, 
shows  appearance  of  Samuel  to  Saul,  David’s  hope  of  see¬ 
ing  his  child,  etc. 

Ps.  16:11.  In  thy  presence  is  fullness  of  joy;  at  thy  right  hand 
are  pleasures  forevermore. 

Ps.  17:15.  I  will  behold  thy  face  in  righteousness:  I  shall  be 
satisfied  when  I  awake  with  thy  likeness. 

Ps.  48:14.  This  God  is  our  God  forever  and  forever. 

Ps.  73:24 — 28.  Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  thy  counsel  and 
afterward  receive  me  to  glory,  etc. 

Isa.  26:19.  Thy  dead  men  shall  live;  together  with  my  dead 
body  shall  they  arise. 

Dan.  12:2.  Many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake; 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con¬ 
tempt. 

(b)  New  Testament  Proof. 

The  doctrine  of  immortality  is  on  nearly  every  page 
of  the  New  Testament. 

Jno.  3:16.  Shall  never  perish  but  have  everlasting  life. 

Jno.  14:2,  3.  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you,  that  where  I  am 
ye  may  be  also. 

Lk.  23:43.  Today  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise. 

Every  reference  to  the  resurrection  is  a  proof  of  im¬ 
mortality. 

Too  many  references  to  quote.  The  whole  system  in¬ 
volves  this  doctrine. 

7.  If  immortality  be  not  true  we  are  imposed  upon 
in  the  very  constitution  of  our  nature,  and  all  life  is  an  in¬ 
soluble  mystery. 

8.  Claims  of  communications  from  departed  spirits 
are  not  sufficiently  authenticated  to  furnish  a  dependable 
argument. 


Section  III.  Conditional  Immortality. 

This  is  the  belief  that  immortality  is  conditioned  on 
regeneration  and  that  there  is  no  immortality  apart  from 
spiritual  life.  Spiritual  life  is  indeed  conditioned  on  re- 


318 


ESCHATOLOGY 


generation;  but  a  consistent  theology  does  not  identify  the 
specific  terms  spiritual  life  and  eternal  life  with  spiritual 
existence  and  eternal  existence. 

A  fundamental  postulate  of  Russelism  is  that  the  soul 
is  not  inherently  immortal;  from  this  it  goes  on  to  argue 
a  conditional  immortality. 

This  is  to  be  met  by  a  denial  of  the  premise  and  fur¬ 
ther  by  citing  ample  Scriptural  proof  to  the  contrary. 


Chapter  II.  The  State  of  the  Soul  Immediately  after  Death. 

1.  Materialism  says:  It  ceases  to  be. 

2.  Pantheism  and  Christian  Science  teach  that  it  re¬ 
turns  to  the  reservoir  of  being  from  which  it  arose. 

3.  Some  say  the  soul  sleeps  till  the  resurrection. 

4.  Some  say  it  goes  to  an  intermediate  place. 

Purgatory.  Limbus  Patrum.  Limbus  Infantum. 

Paradise.  Distinguish  between  an  intermediate  place, 
and  state. 

5.  The  Bible  teaches  that  it  enters  on  its  eternal 
reward  or  punishment. 

(a)  Lk.  16:19 — 31.  Parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus. 

(b)  II  Cor.  5:8.  Absent  from  the  body  and  present  with  the 

Lord. 

(c)  Lk.  23:43.  Today  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise. 

Paradise  is  not  a  middle  place  but  heaven. 

II  Cor.  12:4.  Caught  up  into  paradise  and  heard  unspeakable 
words. 

Rev.  2:7.  The  tree  of  life  which  is  in  the  paradise  of  God. 

Rev.  22:1,  2.  And  he  showed  me  a  river  of  water  of  life  bright 
as  crystal  proceeding  out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb. 
In  the  midst  of  the  street  and  on  either  side  of  the  river  was  a  tree 
of  life. 

The  tree  of  life  is  in  paradise.  The  tree  of  life  is 
in  heaven.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  paradise  is 
heaven. 

Catechism  87.  What  benefits  do  believers  receive  from 
Christ  at  death? 

The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect 
in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory;  and  their 


ESCHATOLOGY 


319 


bodies,  being-  still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves 
till  the  resurrection. 

6.  Death  is  the  boundary  between  time  and  eternity, 
between  this  world  and  the  next.  From  that  land  of  sha¬ 
dow  there  is  no  restoration;  “the  bourn  from  which  no 
traveler  ere  returns.” 

Achilles  said :  “Kine  and  goodly  flocks  are  to  be  had  for 
the  harrying,  tripods  and  chestnut  horses  for  the  pur¬ 
chasing;  but  to  bring  back  man’s  life,  neither  harrying 
nor  earning  availeth  anything  when  once  it  hath  passed 
the  barrier  of  his  lips.” 


Chapter  III.  The  Resurrection  of  the  Body. 


Section  I.  Proof  from  general  considerations. 

1.  Some  say  that  it  means  only  that  the  soul  rises 
to  a  higher  state.  Mark  12:26.  Christ  proves  to  the  Sad- 
ducees  that  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  still  live.  Said  that 
this  proves  no  resurrection  of  the  body  but  only  immortality 
of  the  soul. 

But  the  Sadducees  denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
and  on  that  ground  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Christ  cut  at  the  root  of  their  unbelief. 

2.  Swedenborgians  teach  that  man  has  two  bodies, 
an  external  and  an  internal,  a  material  and  a  psychical. 
The  external  body  dies  and  is  buried  and  never  rises  again ; 
but  the  internal  body  passes  with  the  soul  into  the  heavenly 
state  and  that  is  the  only  resurrection. 

1.  Cor.  15:44.  There  is  a  natural  body  and  there  is 
a  spiritual  body. 

2.  Cor.  5:1.  — have  a  building  of  God. 

3.  A  bodily  resurrection. 

(a)  Only  that  can  be  resurrected  that  had  been  bur¬ 
ied.  The  word  implies  previous  burial.  Cannot  be  said  of 
the  soul. 


320 


ESCHATOLOGY 


(b)  Christ’s  resurrection  was  bodily,  therefore  all  others 
the  same. 

(c)  Proof  texts. 

Dan.  1:2.  Many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake. 

Isa.  26:19.  Thy  dead  men  shall  live;  together  with  my  dead 
body  shall  they  arise. 

Rom.  8:12.  He  that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  quicken 
your  mortal  bodies. 

Phil.  3:21.  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body  that  it  may  be 
fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body. 

I  Cor.  15:42 — 44.  Sown  in  corruption  etc. 

Jno.  5:28.  All  that  are  in  their  graves  etc. 

Jno.  6:39,  40,  44.  Raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

(d)  It  takes  body  and  soul  to  constitute  our  complete 
personality;  and  Christ’s  redemption  of  us  involves  the 
redemption  of  our  bodies.  The  fall  involved  man’s  body 
and  redemption  will  not  stop  short  of  the  entire  restoration 
of  all  that  was  lost. 

(e)  Resurrection  no  more  incredible  than  birth. 

Dr.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  pp.  649  says: 

“It  is  no  more  strange  that  the  human  body  should 
exist  a  second  time  than  that  it  should  exist  the  first  time. 

That  a  full-formed  human  body  should  be  produced 
from  a  microscopic  cell  is  as  difficult  to  believe  as  that  a 
spiritual  resurrection-body  should  be  produced  out  of  the 
natural  earthly  body.  The  marvels  of  embryology  are,  a 
priori,  as  incredible  as  those  of  the  resurrection. 

The  difference  between  the  body  that  is  laid  in  the 
grave,  and  the  body  that  is  raised  from  the  grave  is  not 
so  great  as  the  difference  between  the  minute  embryonic 
ovum,  and  the  human  form  divine. 

If  the  generation  of  the  body,  were,  up  to  this  time, 
as  rare  an  event  as  the  resurrection  of  the  body  it  might 
be  denied  with  equal  plausibility. 

Acts  26:8.  Why  should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible  that 
GOD  should  raise  the  dead?” 

Shorter  Catechism  38.  What  benefits  do  believers  re¬ 
ceive  from  Christ  at  the  resurrection? 

At  the  resurrection  believers  being  raised  up  in  glory 
shall  be  openly  acknowledged  and  acquitted  in  the  day  of 
judgment  and  made  perfectly  blessed  in  the  full  enjoying 
of  God  to  all  eternity. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


321 


Section  II.  Proof  from  the  fact  of  Christ’s  resurrec¬ 
tion. 

It  is  the  undoubted  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
that  Christ’s  resurrection  is  the  pledge  and  promise  of 
the  believer’s  resurrection.  “Christ  the  first  fruits,  then 
those  that  are  Christ’s  at  his  coming.”  “But  if  there  be 
no  resurrection  of  the  dead  then  is  not  Christ  risen.” 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  one  of  the  best  attested 
facts  in  Christian  belief,  and  the  proof  of  his  resurrection 
becomes  the  assurance  of  the  resurrection  of  all  those  unit¬ 
ed  to  him. 

Some  considerations  bearing  on  Christ’s  resurrection 
follow. 

1.  The  narratives  have  every  appearance  of  being 
candidly  and  truthfully  written. 

2.  The  proof  is  conclusive  that  the  apostles  believed 
it  firmly. 

Paul  said  that  if  Christ  had  not  risen  then  they  were 
false  witnesses.  That  was  the  only  choice.  They  were 
either  saying  what  they  knew  to  be  true,  or  what  they 
knew  to  be  false. 

3.  The  apostles  knew  how  to  distinguish  between  a 
vision  and  a  real  appearance;  their  belief  was  not  due 
therefore  to  a  mere  vision. 

4.  The  apostles  did  not  expect  the  resurrection,  and 
their  belief  was  not  due  to  preconceived  opinion. 

5.  The  empty  tomb  was  doubtless  one  reason  why 
so  many  were  convinced  at  Pentecost.  If  the  body  had 
been  in  the  tomb  the  Jews  could  have  produced  it  after  the 
third  day  or  even  as  late  as  Pentecost  and  silenced  for¬ 
ever  the  claims  of  the  apostles  that  Christ  had  risen. 

6.  That  the  tomb  was  empty  after  the  third  day  is 
evident. 

What  are  the  possible  ways  that  the  body  could  be 
removed  ? 

(a)  By  the  agency  of  friends.  But  they  were  too 
weak  and  scattered. 

(b)  By  the  agency  of  foes.  But  they  were  guarding 
the  tomb  to  make  sure  that  the  body  should  remain  within. 


322 


ESCHATOLOGY 


(c)  By  the  agency  of  the  Devil.  But  he  was  most 
concerned  to  keep  the  body  in  the  tomb  to  prove  that  Christ 
was  really  dead. 

(d)  By  the  agency  of  God.  And  that  is  the  only 
explanation. 

7.  Men  have  sought  to  account  for  the  empty  tomb 
as  follows: 

(a)  By  declaring  the  claim  of  resurrection  to  be  a 
falsehood. 

That  is  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  the  apostles 
and  of  Christ. 

Inconsistent  with  their  lives  of  testimony.  Men  do 
not  endure  persecution  and  death  to  maintain  a  falsehood. 

(b)  By  supposing  that  Jesus  swooned  and  was  there¬ 
fore  not  really  dead. 

But  there  are  great  difficulties  to  this  view.  How 
could  such  a  wounded  and  weak  man  roll  away  the  great 
stone,  walk  several  miles  to  Emmaus  and  back  and  appear 
well  and  healthy  immediately  after  such  an  experience? 
Besides  his  enemies  and  the  soldiers  made  sure  he  was 
dead  and  it  is  not  likely  they  were  deceived. 

(c)  That  the  story  of  the  resurrection  is  but  a  legend 
that  grew  up  about  Christ’s  memory  as  years  passed.  But 
the  resurrection  was  preached  immediately,  before  any  leg¬ 
end  had  time  to  grow.  The  gospels  and  epistles  were  writ¬ 
ten  soon  after  the  crucifixion  and  are  practically  contem¬ 
poraneous  accounts.  No  legend  grew  up  around  the  name 
of  John  the  Baptist;  therefore  the  first  century  was  not 
such  a  myth-making  age. 

.(d)  That  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  due 
to  visions  which  the  disciples  mistook  for  facts.  But  these 
men,  Paul,  Peter,  etc.  did  definitely  distinguish  between 
visions  and  objective  events.  Besides  groups  of  men  do 
not  all  have  visions  at  the  same  moment  of  time;  any  more 
than  they  all  dream  the  same  thing  at  the  same  time. 
The  eleven  disciples  frequently  saw  Christ,  and  he  was 
seen  by  above  five  hundred  at  once. 

This  disposes  of  any  vision  theory. 

8.  “Now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead  and  become 
the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept.”  “And  if  Christ  be 
not  risen  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also 
vain.” 


ESCHATOLOGY 


323 


Section  III.  The  Joy  of  the  Resurrection. 


Few  doctrines  are  more  precious  to  the  human  heart 
than  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 

(a)  It  brings  the  joy  of  continued  existence  in  body 
and  spirit.  It  supports  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  and  he 
who  loves  life  will  crave  its  continuance.  No  normal  man 
covets  annihilation  but  shrinks  from  the  thought  of  it.  It 
is  unnatural  to  the  human  spirit.  Prof.  Huxley  said  that 
he  would  rather  be  in  some  of  the  upper  galleries  of  hell 
for  eternity  than  to  be  annihilated.  The  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  fits  into  man’s  love  of  existence.  Who  can 
think  of  inevitable  dissolution  and  not  praise  God  for  the 
hope  of  a  resurrection. 

(b)  The  doctrine  of  resurrection  belongs  to  the  min¬ 
istry  of  consolation. 

It  is  a  doctrine  too  good  not  to  be  true.  Who  can  bend 
over  the  open  casket  and  look  for  the  last  time  into  the 
face  that  he  loved,  or  look  into  the  open  grave  as  the  form 
is  lowered  to  its  resting  place  and  not  prize  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  above  all  the  gold  of  the  world? 

From  the  gloom  and  grief  of  bereavement  the  stricken 
heart  turns  away  to  another  day  “when  with  the  morn 
those  angel  faces  smile,  which  we  have  loved  long  since  and 
lost  awhile.” 

Who  can  measure  the  value  of  that  of  which  unbelief 
would  rob  us? 

How  dark  this  world,  and  how  bitter  our  fate  if  the 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  be  not  true! 

“Alas,  for  him  who  never  sees 

The  stars  shine  through  his  cypress  trees! 

Who,  hopeless,  lays  his  dead  away, 

Nor  looks  to  see  the  breaking  day 
Across  the  mournful  marbles  play! 

Who  hath  not  learned,  in  hours  of  faith, 

The  truth  to  flesh  and  sense  unknown 
That  Life  is  ever  lord  of  Death, 

And  love  can  never  lose  its  own!” 


Whittier’s  “Snowbound” 


324 


ESCHATOLOGY 


Chapter  IV.  The  Identity  of  the  Resurrection-body. 

1.  Is  it  the  same  body  that  was  laid  in  the  tomb? 

Christ’s  resurrected  body  was  the  same  body. 

Proved  to  Thomas. 

All  Biblical  expressions  imply  sameness.  Necessary 
to  idea  of  resurrection. 

I  Cor.  15:42.  It  is  sown,  it  is  raised. 

2.  Wherein  does  that  identity  consist? 

(a)  In  unorganized  matter  identity  depends  on  same¬ 
ness  of  substance  and  form. 

A  stone  ground  and  scattered  loses  its  identity  for 
want  of  form. 

The  same  material  recombined  in  the  same  form  would 
restore  the  identity.  Water  frozen  and  melted  preserves 
its  identity.  Same  substance  and  form.  Water  evaporated 
and  condensed  preserves  identity. 

(b)  Human  identity  may  not  depend  on  sameness  of 
material  substance. 

The  human  body  may  disintegrate  and  pass  into  other 
bodies  and  the  same  material  become  parts  of  several  dif¬ 
ferent  men. 

The  substance  of  our  bodies  changes  every  seven  years. 

Yet  we  recognize  the  same  bodies  in  age  as  in  infancy, 
though  the  substance  has  changed  several  times.  There¬ 
fore  the-  identity  of  the  human  body  does  not  depend  on 
the  sameness  of  the  material  particles. 

3.  Various  views  of  the  resurrection-body. 

(a)  Some  think  that  some  small  particle  of  our  pres¬ 
ent  body  will  be  sufficient  out  of  which  to  form  our  rarified 
resurrection  body,  e.  g.  one  ten-thousandth  part  enough. 

Tertullian  thought  that  God  had  rendered  the  teeth 
indestructible  to  furnish  material  for  our  future  bodies. 

(b)  Others  think  that  in  our  bodies  is  an  indestruc¬ 
tible  germ  which  is  to  be  developed  into  our  resurrection 
body.  This  is  a  modern  view  and  is  the  germ  theory. 

(c)  Expression  together  with  form  may  constitute 
identity;  and  material  substance  may  not  be  essential  to 
identity. 


325 


ESCHATOLOGY 

In  a  block  of  marble  is  the  substance  out  of  which  a 
statue  is  to  be -made;  but  the  statue  is  not  there.  It  takes 
expression  and  form  for  that.  A  brother  gone  35  years. 
Substance  changed  five  times.  Recognized  at  once.  The 
material  which  your  soul  wears  constitutes  your  body  and 
becomes  a  medium  of  expression  for  your  soul;  and  in  ex¬ 
pressing  you  continues  its  identity. 

(d)  Recognizability  enters  into  identity. 

Dr.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  says: 

“The  resurrection-body  is  an  identical  body.  An  iden¬ 
tical  body  is  one  that  is  recognized  by  the  person  himself, 
and  by  others. 

“No  more  than  this  is  required  in  order  to  bodily 
identity.  A  living  man  recognizes  his  present  body  as  the 
same  body  that  he  had  ten  years  ago;  yet  the. material 
particles  are  not  the  same  identically.” 

“That  the  spiritual  body  is  recognized  is  proved  by: — 

Lk.  9:30 — 33.  Moses  and  Elijah  were  recognized  by  Christ  and 
pointed  out  to  the  disciples. 

Lk.  13:28.  Ye  shall  see  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  all 
the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

This  shows  that  they  will  be  recognized  and  therefore 
others  as  well. 

(e)  The  Bible  aoes  not  say  in  what  the  identity  con¬ 
sists;  but  we  think  it  rational  to  believe  in  an  identity 
whether  it  consists  in  “sameness  of  substance,  in  expression, 
or  in  the  uninterrupted  continuity  of  the  indwelling  vital 
force;  or  all  of  them,  or  in  something  different  from  them 
all.”  Abbreviated,  ITodge,  III,  777. 

(f)  Summary: 

Into  the  resurrection-body  therefore  may  enter  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree: 

(1)  Material  substance. 

(2)  Form. 

(3)  Expression. 

(4)  Recognizability. 

(5)  Continuity  or  connection.  There  is  an  unbroken 
continuity  between  the  seed  sown  and  the  seed  grown. 
There  is  also  an  unbroken  continuity  between  the  body  of 
the  infant  and  the  body  of  the  man.  Dr.  Shedd — “The 
resurrection-body  is  founded  on,  and  constructed  out  of 
the  previously  existing  earthly  body.” 


326 


ESCHATOLOGY 


Chapter  V.  The  Second  Advent.* 


Section  I.  A  matter  of  prophecy. 

1.  We  are  not  to  expect  prophecy  to  be  explicit  like 
history. 

Of  Christ’s  first  advent  it  was  prophesied  that  a  Mes¬ 
siah  should  come.  That  he  would  be  a  redeemer,  a  king, 
a  priest,  and  establish  a  kingdom  which  should  absorb  all 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth. 

Yet  none  interpreted  the  prophecies  rightly. 

“He  did  come  as  a  redeemer  yet  not  to  break  the  Ro¬ 
man  yoke  with  armies. 

He  did  come  as  a  king,  but  not  the  kind  of  a  king  they 
expected. 

He  did  come  as  a  priest,  but  the  only  priest  that  ever 
lived  who  was  both  priest  and  victim  at  the  same  time. 

He  did  establish  a  kingdom,  but  his  kingdom  was  not 
of  this  world. 

It  was  foretold  that  Elias  should  come.  He  did  come, 
but  in  a  way  that  no  one  could  anticipate. 

It  was  foretold  that  Christ  should  sit  on  the  throne 
of  David;  but  that  has  proved  to  be  no  earthly  throne. 

He  is  to  subdue  all  nations,  not  by  the  sword;  but  by 
truth  and  love.  From  these  things  we  are  not  to  expect 
to  find  prophecy  like  history.” — (Reference  lost.) 

2.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  a  coming  of  the  Lord  and 
a  day  of  the  Lord  when  they  mean  something  else  than  the 
second  Advent  in  its  technical  sense. 

Joel  2:1.  — the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh;  it  is  nigh  at  hand; 

also  verse  11. 

Ob.  1:15.  Here  the  day  of  the  Lord  refers  to  judgment  on 
Edom. 

Zeph.  1:7,  14.  Day  of  the  Lord — day  of  punishment  for  the 
nation. 

Zech.  14:1.  Day  of  the  Lord — when  armies  gathered  against 
Jerusalem. 


*This  subject  is  given  disproportionate  space  because  it  is  a 
burning  eschatological  question  at  the  present  time. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


327 


Isa.  13:6.  Day  of  the  Lord — when  Babylon  shall  be  destroyed. 

Jer.  46:10.  Day  of  the  Lord — when  Egypt  defeated  by  Babylon. 

Jno.  14:22,  23.  We  will  come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode 
with  him. 

Rev.  2:16.  Repent  or  else  I  will  come  unto  thee  quickly. 

Matt.  10:23.  Ye  shall  not  have  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel 
till  the  Son  of  Man  be  come. 

Matt.  16:28.  There  be  some  standing  here  who  shall  not  taste 
of  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom. 

Jno.  14:3.  If  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you  I  will  come 
again  and  receive  you  unto  myself,  that  where  I  am  there  ye  may 
be  also. 

Jno.  14:18.  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless  I  will  come 
unto  you. 

Jno.  14:23.  — and  my  Father  will  love  him  and  we  will  come 

unto  him,  etc. 

Rev.  3:20.  If  any  man  hear  my  voice  and  open  the  door  I  will 
come  in  to  him. 

Section  II.  Christ  will  come  again. 

1.  It  will  be  a  personal  coming. 

Acts  1:11.  This  same  Jesus  who  is  taken  up  from  you  into 
heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into 
heaven.  * 

I  Thess.  4:16.  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven 
with  a  shout. 

Heb.  9:28.  And  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear 
the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation. 

Phil.  3:20.  Our  conversation  is  in  heaven  from  whence  we  look 
for  the  Saviour. 

2.  He  will  come  visibly. 

(Russellites  say  he  has  come  but  no  one  has  seen  him.) 

Matt.  24:27.  As  the  lightning  cometh  out  of  the  east  and 
shineth  even  unto  the  west,  so  also  shall  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
Man  be. 

Matt.  24:30.  Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man 
in  heaven,  and  all  tribes  shall  mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of 
Man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory. 

Rev.  1:7.  Every  eye  shall  see  him. 

I  Jno.  3:2.  When  he  shall  appear  we  shall  be  like  him  for  we 
shall  see  him  as  he  is. 

Section  III.  Events  that  will  precede  the  second  com¬ 
ing. 

1.  Preaching  of  the  gospel  to  all  nations. 

Matt.  24:14.  The  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in 
all  the  world  for  a  witness  to  all  nations,  and  then  shall  the  end  come. 

Mk.  13:10.  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  among  all 
nations. 


328 


ESCHATOLOGY 


Matt.  28:19,  20.  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations — And 
lo  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

Rom.  11:25.  Blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel  till  the 
fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in. 

2.  The  conversion  of  the  Jews. 

(a)  They  shall  be  converted. 

Rom.  11:23,  24.  They  also  shall  be  grafted  in. 

Natural  branches  grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree. 

Rom.  11:26.  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved. 

(b)  Israel  will  be  converted  before  the  second  coming*. 

Gentiles  converted  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and 
the  inference  is  that  the  Jews  will  be  converted  in  the  same 
way. 

Rom.  11:11.  Shows  that  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles  was  to 
provoke  the  Jews  to  jealousy,  or  excite  to  rivalry. 

Rom.  11:31.  Through  the  mercy  shown  to  you;  they  also  may 
now  obtain  mercy. 

This  shows  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  is  to  lead  to 
the  conversion  of  the  Jews;  and  this  evidently  by  the  gospel.  The 
mercy  to  the  Gentiles  was  the  gospel;  and  through  this  Israel  is 
to  obtain  mercy. 

Matt.  23:39.  Ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth  till  ye  shall  say: 
Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Implies  con¬ 
version. 

Acts  3:19 — 21.  Peter  bids  the  Jews  repent  in  order  that  times 
of  refreshing  may  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  that  he 
may  send  the  Christ.  This  shows  their  repentance  must  precede 
Christ’s  coming. 

3.  The  coming  of  Anti-Christ  is  thought  by  some  to 
precede  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 

II  Tliess.  2:1 — 3.  Be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind  or  troubled  as 
that  the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand,  for  that  day  shall  not  come  except 
— a  falling  away  first  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed. 

Who  is  he?  Some  think:  Any  great  spirit  of  opposi¬ 
tion. — Some  person  of  great  power  and  wickedness. — Papa¬ 
cy;  Napoleon;  a  world  king.  (See  Appendix  D.) 

I  Jno.  2:18.  Even  now  are  there  many  Anti-Christs. 

The  Anti-Christ  of  Paul’s  day  and  John’s  day,  is  best 
identified  with  the  Roman  Power. 

Section  IV.  Events  which  will  accompany  the  second 
advent. 

1.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead,  just  and  unjust. 

Dan.  12:2. 

Jno.  5:28,  29.  — all  that  are  in  their  graves,  all  at  once;  at 

Christ’s  call. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


329 


Rev.  20:12,  13.  All  the  dead  rising  and  coming  to  judgment. 

I  Thess.  4:16.  The  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven 
with  a  shout  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first,  (i.  e.  before 
ascension). 

This  shows  that  the  resurrection  occurs  at  the  advent 
of  Christ. 

2.  The  Judgment. 

Matt.  25:31.  f¥.  Shows  Christ’s  coming  followed  by  the  general 
judgment. 

Schofield  clearly  wrong  in  making  this  a  judgment 
of  nations. 

II  Thess.  1:7 — 10.  Shows  coming  connected  with  judgment. 

3.  The  end  of  the  world  associated  with  the  second 
coming. 

Matt.  13:39.  In  Parable  of  Tares:  The  harvest  is  the  end  of 
the  world,  and  the  reapers  are  the  angels. 

Matt.  13:40 — 43.  Application  of  same. 

Matt.  13:49.  Parable  of  the  Net.  So  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of 
the  world,  the  angels  shall  come  forth  and  sever  the  wicked  from 
among  the  good  and  shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire,  etc. 

Sometimes  said  that  the  word  “world”  means  age ;  and 
so  not  end  of  world.  But  it  is  the  age  of  the  world’s  af¬ 
fairs.  The  destiny  appointed  to  the  righteous  and  wicked 
shows  what  end  is  meant. 

II  Pet.  3:10,  12.  Elements  melt,  earth  burned  up,  heavens  on 

fire. 

Christ  refers  judgment  and  resurrection  to  “the  last 
day.” 

Jno.  12:48.  The  word  that  I  have  spoken  the  same  will  judge 

him  in  the  last  day. 

Jno.  11:24.  Martha  (taught  by  Christ)  says:  I  know  that  he 
will  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day. 

Jno.  6:39.  — that  of  all  that  he  hath  given  me  I  should  lose 

nothing;  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at  the  last  day. 

Jno.  6:40.  — may  have  everlasting  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up 

at  the  last  day. 

Jno.  6:44.  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Lather — draw 
him,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

Section  V.  Premillennialism. 

1.  Statement.  This  doctrine  teaches,  as  its  name  in¬ 
dicates,  that  Christ  will  come  a  second  time  before  the  mil¬ 
lennium.  It  had  some  currency  from  A.  D.  150  till  about 
250,  afterwards  gradually  died  out  and  has  been  revived 
to  some  extent  in  recent  j^ears.  Premillennialists  under¬ 
stand  the  term  “kingdom”  to  mean  the  millennial  king¬ 
dom.  They  say  that  Christ  came  and  offered  himself  and 
the  kingdom ;  that  both  were  refused ;  and  that  the  kingdom 


330 


ESCHATOLOGY 


was  withdrawn  from  the  world  when  Christ  ascended ;  that 
there  is  now  no  kingdom  in  the  world  and  will  not  be  till 
Christ  comes  to  reign  personally  and  visibly  on  earth, — 
“no  kingdom  without  a  king.”  This  is  therefore  not  the 
kingdom  age  but  the  church  age.  The  gospel  will  not  suc¬ 
ceed  but  the  world  will  be  converted  by  the  second  coming. 

Christ's  coming  is  said  to  be  imminent,  that  he  may 
come  any  day.  The  Bishop  of  London  said  a  few  years 
ago  that  it  would  occur  in  1920.  For  efforts  to  fix  the  date 
see  Appendix  E.  According  to  this  view  when  Christ 
comes  the  godly  dead  will  rise,  the  church  ascend  to  meet 
Christ  in  the  air,  and  Christ  and  the  Church  will  remain 
in  the  air  for  a  period;  said  by  some  to  be  seven  years. 
That  period  is  a  time  of  tribulation  to  the  Jews  and  the 
wicked  on  earth. 

At  the  end  of  the  tribulation,  Christ  and  the  church 
come  to  earth  and  reign  a  thousand  years.  By  this  coming 
the  Jews  are  converted  and  presumably  all  others.  At  the 
end  of  the  thousand  years  Satan  is  loosed;  the  world  goes 
from  bad  to  worse,  Satan’s  hosts  war  against  the  saints 
till  fire  comes  down  to  destroy  them.  Then  Satan  is  cast 
into  the  pit;  then  follow  the  resurrection  and  judgment 
of  the  wicked. 


Chart. 


Christ 

Descends 


Christ  and  Church  in  air 


Eternity 


Resurrection 


Resurrection 


331 


ESCHATOLOGY 

2.  Arguments  for  Premillennialism  as  given  by  Wil¬ 
liam  E.  Blackstone. 

(a)  Anti-Christ  is  to  be  destroyed  by  Christ’s  second 
coming. — II  Thess.  2:8. 

(b) 

Matt.  24:29 — 31.  Christ’s  coming  immediately  after  tribulation. 

(c) 

II  Tim.  3:12.  All  who  will  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus  shall 
suffer  persecution. 

The  true  church  is  a  persecuted,  suffering  church,  and 
this  will  continue  till  Christ  comes  again. 

II  Thess.  1:7.  And  to  you  that  are  afflicted,  rest  with  us  at  the 
revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  heaven  with  the  angels  of  his 
power  in  flaming  fire. 

This  continued  persecution  and  suffering  precludes  any 
millennium  until  after  Christ’s  coming. 

(d) 

Matt.  13:30.  The  tares  and  wheat  will  grow  together  until  the 
end  (of  this  age). 

II  Tim.  3:13.  Evil  men  and  seducers  will  wax  worse  and  worse. 

Lk.  17:30.  As  it  was  in  the  days  of  Noah  and  Lot,  even  thus 
shall  it  be  in  the  day  when  the  Son  of  Man  is  revealed. 

This  absolutely  precludes  the  idea  of  the  millennial 
reign  of  righteousness  in  this  dispensation. 

(e)  The  millennial  kingdom  will  be  a  literal  reign  of 
Christ  on  earth,  and  not  simply  a  spiritual  exaltation  of 
the  church. 

Isa.  32:1.  Behold  a  king  shall  reign  in  righteousness. 

Jer.  23:5.  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch,  and  a 
king  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  execute  judgment  and  justice  in 
the  earth. 

This  reign  shall  be  upon  the  throne  of  David. 

Isa.  9:7.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and  peace  there 
shall  be  no  end  upon  the  throne  of  David  and  upon  his  kingdom  to 
order  and  establish  it  with  judgment  and  justice  from  henceforth 
even  forever. 

Lk.  1:32.  Ele  shall  be  great  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the 
Highest,  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his 
father  David. 

Verse  33  describes  an  everlasting  reign. 

This  visible  reign  shall  be  at  Jerusalem. 

Jer.  3:17.  At  that  time  shall  they  call  Jerusalem  the  throne  of 
the  Lord,  and  all  the  nations  shall  be  gathered  unto  it,  to  the  name 
of  the  Lord  to  Jerusalem.  (Spoken  in  connection  with  restoration 
from  Babylon.) 


332 


ESCHATOLOGY 


Zech.  14:16.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every  one  that  is 
left  of  all  the  nations  that  came  against  Jerusalem  shall  even  go  up 
from  year  to  year  to  worship  the  king,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  and  to 
keep  the  feast  of  Tabernacles. 

The  Apostles  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones. 

Matt.  19:28.  Ye  which  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration, 
when  t'he  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also 
shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 

(Question  is,  what  time  is  referred  to?) 

Saints  shall  reign  on  the  earth. 

Rev.  5:10.  And  hath  made  us  unto  our  God,  kings  and  priests 
and  we  shall  reign  on  earth.  (Part  of  the  song  in  heaven.) 

(f)  Argument  from  the  order  of  the  resurrection. 

As  Jesus  was  raised  out  of  the  dead  and  the  rest  of 
the  dead  were  left,  so  the  dead  in  Christ,  that  are  his  at 
his  coming,  will  be  raised  out  of  the  dead,  and  the  rest  of 
the  dead  will  be  left  until  another  and  final  resurrection, 
and  the  Millennium  will  occur  between  these  two  resur¬ 
rections;  thus  clearly  showing  Christ’s  coming  to  be  pre- 
millennial. 

I  Cor.  15:23  ff.  Every  man  in  his  own  order,  Christ  the  first 
fruits,  afterwards  they  that  are  Christ’s  at  his  coming; — then  (or 
afterwards)  the  end,  i.  e.  Christ — saints — the  rest  of  dead  at  the 
end.  (Lorced  interpretation) 

I  Thess.  4:16.  — and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first. 

Rev.  20:4,  5.  And  I  saw  the  souls  of  those  that  were  beheaded 
— and  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.  But  the 
rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  until  the  thousand  years  were  finished. 
This  is  the  first  resurrection.  Those  who  were  beheaded  are  thought 
to  be  “tribulation  saints,”  or  those  who  perished  in  the  tribulation 
under  the  reign  of  the  Anti-Christ. 

3.  Remarks  on  Blackstone’s  Arguments. 

(a)  That  Anti-Christ  will  be  destroyed  at  Christ’s 
second  coming  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  he  will  con¬ 
tinue  till  that  coming,  but  that  he  will  share  the  fate  that 
awaits  all  the  wicked;  and  the  apostle  John  says,  “There 
are  many  Anti-Christs,”  and  Christ  comes  in  judgment  on 
evil  doers  as  well  as  personally. 

(b)  Christ’s  coming  immediately  after  the  tribula¬ 
tion. 

Even  on  the  Postmillennial  view  there  may  be  a  tribu¬ 
lation  at  the  end  of  the  world,  when  Satan  is  loosed  from 
the  pit. 

There  are  many  tribulations,  and  Matt.  24  clearly  fixes 
one  of  them  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


333 


(c)  That  the  church  is  a  persecuted  church  and  that 
this  precludes  any  millennial  era  before  Christ’s  coming  is 
too  large  a  conclusion  for  the  basis  on  which  it  is  placed. 

(d)  As  to  the  tares,  evil  men  and  seducers,  and  days 
of  Noah  and  Lot,  observe: 

The  design  of  the  parable  of  the  tares  is  to  explain 
Christ’s  attitude  toward  evil  and  to  teach  the  church’s  duty ; 
— that  evil  is  not  to  be  uprooted  by  violence.  The  church 
must  suffer  its  presence  in  the  world.  This  end  of  the 
world  is  the  terminus  of  the  world’s  affairs,  as  is  shown 
by  the  final  separation,  the  agency  of  angels,  and  the  des¬ 
tiny  appointed  to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  The  ques¬ 
tion  of  a  millennial  reign  is  not  in  view;  but  a  simultan¬ 
eous  judgment  which  Premillennialism  denies,  and  that 
good  and  evil  intermingle  till  the  end  of  the  world,  then 
separation  and  destiny. 

The  growth  of  evil  in  wicked  men  proves  nothing  as 
to  the  time  of  the  second  coming. 

The  analogy  to  the  days  of  Noah  and  Lot  shows  only 
that  the  coming  will  be  sudden  and  unexpected,  but  shows 
nothing  as  to  the  time. 

(e)  The  argument  for  a  literal  reign. 

This  argument  is  too  literal.  If  the  Messiah  must  sit 
on  a  literal  throne  then  must  that  literal  throne  last  for¬ 
ever.  Isa.  9:7.  Lk.  1:33. 

Apostles  on  twelve  thrones:  this  assigns  as  a  proof 
the  very  thing  that  is  to  be  proved,  viz.  that  the  reign 
will  be  on  earth.  The  question  at  issue  is,  what  time  is 
referred  to.  ‘‘In  the  regeneration”  denotes  a  post-judg¬ 
ment  period  corresponding  to  Rev.  21  and  22. 

The  reference  to  David’s  throne  is  explained  in  Acts 
15:14 — 16.  James  shows  how  God  visited  the  Gentiles  to 
take  out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name,  and  declares  this 
to  be  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  that  the  tabernacle  of 
David  shall  be  built  again. 

The  Christian  church  and  kingdom  is  therefore  the 
setting  up  again  of  “David’s  house”  which  was  “fallen 
down.” 

Rev.  5:10.  Saints  reigning  on  earth.  The  Revised  Version 
gives  a  different  meaning  to  this  text. 

Christ  says:  “The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you,  also. 
My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  and  the  kingdom  of  God 
cometh  not  with  observation.” 


334 


ESCHATOLOGY 


(f)  Argument  from  the  order  of  the  resurrection. 

Here  we  have  three  texts  presented. 

I  Cor.  15:23  ff.  The  interpretation  is  forced.  It  is  quite  as 
justifiable  here  to  synchronize  Christ’s  coming  with  the  end.  “Then 
the  end.” 

I  Thess.  4:16.  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  The  inference 
drawn  here  is  clearly  wrong  as  the  context  will  show.  The  resurrec¬ 
tion  is  “first”  as  respects  the  ascension,  and  not  as  respects  another 
resurrection. 

Rev.  20:4,  5.  Here  the  meaning  is  too  uncertain  to  make  the 
text  decisive.  See  remarks  on  Rev.  20,  on  a  subsequent  page. 

David  Brown  in  “The  Second  Advent,”  pp.  218-258, 
gives  nine  reasons  why  the  resurrection  mentioned  in  Rev. 
20:5  is  not  literal  but  figurative. 

4.  As  to  saints  reigning  on  earth. 

When  the  saints  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air  it  is  added: 
“So  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord.”  There  is  no  hint 
of  coming  back  to  earth  after  their  ascension.  This  would 
involve  either  a  retransformation  from  the  resurrection- 
body  to  a  natural  body,  or  their  reigning  on  earth  in  their 
“spiritual”  bodies. 

Premillennialism  teaches  a  universal  resurrection  of 
saints  and  their  reigning  on  earth  during  the  period  of  the 
millennium. 

The  passages  usually  cited  in  this  connection  are  as 
follows : 

Deut.  35:2.  And  the  Lord  came  from  Sinai,  he  shined  forth 
from  Mount  Paran,  and  he  came  with  ten  thousands  of  saints. 

Revised  Version:  And  he  came  from  the  ten  thousand 
holy  ones. 

This  refers  to  God’s  appearance  to  Moses  on  Sinai; 
the  ten  thousands  of  holy  ones  are  the  heavenly  hosts. 
This  has  no  reference  to  the  advent. 

In  Ps.  68:17  they  are  said  to  be  ten  thousand  angels. 

Matt.  19:28.  Ye  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel. 

The  Premillennialist  understands  that  Israel  will  arise 
again  as  a  nation,  the  tribal  relations  will  be  reconstructed, 
the  Jewish  worship  set  up  with  its  old-time  forms,  ritual, 
sacrifices,  and  feasts;  and  the  apostles  will  rule  over  the 
tribes. 

Two  questions  arise  here;  First,  is  this  to  be  taken 
literally  or  figuratively?  The  Premillennialist  takes  it  lit¬ 
erally  as  referring  to  the  millennium.  Others  may  regard 


ESCHATOLOGY 


335 


it  as  a  figurative  expression  relating  to  the  ministry  of 
the  apostles  to  the  Jews.  But,  Second,  do  the  terms  “re¬ 
generation”,  “when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne 
of  his  glory,”  refer  to  time  or  to  eternity? 

The  Son  of  Man  sits  on  the  throne  of  his  glory  when 
he  comes  to  the  final  judgment.  See  Matt.  25:31  ff. 

The  “regeneration”  evidently  corresponds  with  “the 
new  heavens  and  the  new  earth”  which  II  Pet.  3:13  makes 
subsequent  to  the  dissolution  of  the  earth,  and  Rev.  21  de¬ 
scribes  as  following  the  last  judgment. 

Rev.  5:10.  And  hast  made  us  kings  and  priests  and  we  shall 
reign  on  the  earth. 

The  Revised  Version  entirely  changes  this  and  reads: 
And  madest  them  a  kingdom  and  priests  and  they  reign 
(present  tense)  on  the  earth. 

Rev.  20:4.  And  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand 
years. 

But  is  it  in  heaven  or  on  earth?  See  on  Rev.  20:4 — 6, 
on  a  subsequent  page. 

Zech.  14:5.  And  ye  shall  flee  to  the  valley  of  the  mountains 
for  the  valley  of  the  mountains  shall  reach  unto  Azal,  and  the  Lord 
my  God  shall  come  and  all  the  saints  with  thee. 

These  prophecies  have  chiefly  to  do  with  restored  Juda¬ 
ism  after  the  captivity,  and  with  the  rebuilt  Jerusalem  in 
which  work  they  were  engaged.  The  wars  may  refer  to 
the  wars  with  Syria  or  Rome;  some  details  would  fit  such 
a  view;  but  whether  this  passage  refers  to  the  time  of 
Christ’s  second  coming  cannot  be  gathered  from  the  con¬ 
text. 

The  fact  of  fleeing  by  the  way  of  the  valley  is  against 
such  a  view. 

Matt.  25:31.  Here  angels  are  the  attendants.  The  term  is 
explicit. 

I  Thess.  3:13.  This  refers  the  coming  of  the  saints  to  the  final 
judgment. 

I  Thess.  4:14.  If  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again, 
even  so  them  also  that  sleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him.  Evi¬ 
dently  resurrection. 

Judges  1:14.  Enoch  also  prophesied  of  these  saying:  Behold  the 
Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints. 

Revised  Version.  TO  these  also  Enoch  prophesied  saying:  Be¬ 
hold  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  holy  ones. 

Here  agiais  (holy)  is  the  adjective,  and  muriasin  (my¬ 
riads)  is  the  noun.  The  Authorized  version  made  the  for¬ 
mer  a  noun  and  the  latter  an  adjective.  If  the  latter  were 
an  adjective,  the  ending  would  be  ais,  not  asin.  So  the 
proper  translation  is  “holy  myriads,”  and  if  this  refers 


ESCHATOLOGY 


336 

to  the  second  advent,  may  be  interpreted  with  its  related 
passage  Matt.  25:31,  as  referring  to  angels. 

These  things  may  be  inferred  from  the  above: — 

First,  Angels  will  attend  the  advent. 

Second,  The  bodies  that  sleep  will  be  raised  up  from 
the  grave. 

Third,  The  disembodied  spirits  will  be  brought  from 
their  intermediate  state  to  be  reunited  with  the  resur¬ 
rected  bodies. 

This  much  is  clear.  This  far  we  may  safely  go,  and 
more  than  this  it  is  not  wise  to  assert. 

Elsewhere  we  are  taught  that  we  must  all  appear  be¬ 
fore  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  that  every  one  may  re¬ 
ceive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he 
hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad, — II  Cor.  5:10. 

Matt.'  25:34.  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father  inherit  the  king¬ 
dom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  verse 
46,  and  the  righteous  (shall  go)  into  life  eternal. 

This  may  cover  all  that  is  meant  by  Christ  bringing 
his  saints. 

5.  General  remarks  on  Premillennialism. 

(a)  The  Scriptures  do  say  that  Christ  will  come  again. 
This  is  admitted  by  all.  The  difference  of  opinion  regards 
the  time  of  the  advent. 

(b)  The  Premillennialists  cite  much  from  the  Old 
Testament  that  refers  to  the  first  advent  or  the  progress 
of  the  church  in  the  world. 

(c)  There  is  no  proof  that  the  kingdom  was  with¬ 
drawn  from  the  world  when  Christ  ascended. 

(d)  The  distinction  between  the  church  age  and  the 
kingdom  age  is  entirely  unwarranted.  The  kingdom  is  in 
the  world  at  the  present  time. 

(e)  There  is  no  satisfactory  proof  that  the  saints 
will  return  to  earth  after  meeting  Christ  in  the  air.  The 
only  expressed  sequence  in  loco  is  “so  shall  we  ever  be 
with  the  Lord.”  See  Sec.  V.,  Paragraph  4. 

(f)  When  it  is  said  that  they  reign  with  Christ  a 
thousand  years,  it  is  not  said  whether  that  is  in  heaven 
or  on  the  earth.  Both  views  are  held. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


oorr 
oo  l 

(g)  There  is  no  proof  that  the  church  will  remain 
in  the  air  seven  years  or  for  any  time.  The  week  of  Dan. 
9:27  evidently  refers  to  some  other  event,  and  similar  ref¬ 
erences  are  too  vague  to  justify  such  a  conclusion. 

(h)  In  Matt.  24:21,  Christ  mentions  a  time  of  tribu¬ 
lation  which  evidently  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem.  What  typical  reference  it  may  have  to  some  future 
event  is  not  clear. 

(i)  It  is  not  in  the  Apostles  Creed,  Shorter  Catechism, 
Confession  of  Faith,  or  any  other  church  creed. 

(j)  Its  method  of  interpretation  is  erroneous. 

(k)  It  is  due  more  to  eisegesis  than  to  exegesis. 

Section  VI.  Postmillennialism. 

1.  Statement. 

In  this  view  Christ  comes  at  the  end  of  the  world. 
Then  occurs  the  resurrection,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust; 
the  general  judgment;  and  the  final  sentence  vindicating 
the  righteous,  condemning  the  wicked,  and  consigning  each 
to  their  eternal  destiny. 

It  is  called  Postmillennial  because  it  assigns  Christ’s 
coming  to  a  period  after  the  millennium. 

2.  Proof. 

(a)  In  Matt.  IB,  the  parables  of  the  Tares  and  the 
Draw-net  show  that  the  judgment  is  at  the  “end  of  the 
world.”  The  word  “age”  indicates  the  world-age,  or  what 
we  call  “time.”  The  separation,  the  destiny  assigned  to 
righteous  and  wicked,  in  fact  the  whole  setting  indicate 
a  final  and  not  a  preliminary  scene.  Also  the  judgment  of 
both  classes  is  simultaneous.  The  word,  age,  “aion”,  as 
applied  to  man  in  the  Scriptures,  has  but  two  connotations, 
which  correspond  to  our  terms  “time  and  eternity,”  “here 
and  hereafter,”  “this  world  and  the  next.”  The  one  age 
is  finite  and  the  other  infinite. 

In  confirmation,  see  Matt.  12:32,  Mk.  18:30,  Ephes. 

1:21. 

The  parable  of  the  leaven  in  this  thirteenth  chapter 
shows  the  gradual  development  of  the  kingdom  and  not 
a  cataclysmic  realization.  To  attempt  to  show,  as  some 


338 


ESCHATOLOGY 


do,  that  the  leaven  here  is  not  symbolical  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  is  trifling  with  the  meaning  of  words,  and  worst 
of  all  with  the  word  of  God. 

(b)  Christ’s  use  of  “the  last  day.” 

Christ  refers  both  judgment  and  resurrection  to  the 
last  day,  “THE  last  day.”  That  is  decisive. 

Jno.  6:39.  — lose  nothing;  but  should  raise  it  up  at  the  last  day. 

Jno.  6:40.  — and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

Jno.  6:44.  — and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

Jno.  12:48.  — the  word  that  I  have  spoken,  the  same  shall 

judge  him  in  the  last  day. 

(c)  Martha’s  use  of  “the  last  day.” 

Jno.  11:24.  I  know  that  he  will  rise  again  in  the  resurrection 
in  the  last  day.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Martha  was  taught 
by  Christ. 

(d)  The  Bible  synchronizes  the  second  coming  and 
the  resurrection;  and  further  synchronizes  the  resurrection 
and  the  last  day;  and  therefore  synchronizes  the  second 
coming  and  the  last  day. 

(e)  The  Bible  synchronizes  the  second  coming  and 
the  judgment;  and  further  synchronizes  the  judgment  with 
the  end  of  the  world,  and  therefore  synchronizes  the  second 
coming  and  the  end  of  the  world. 

(f)  The  Scriptures  represent  the  world  as  being  con¬ 
sumed  by  fire  in  that  day  that  comes  as  a  thief.  See  II 
Pet.  3:10 — 12.  Here  we  have  a  phrase  previously  applied 
to  Christ’s  advent,  associated  with  the  destruction  of  the 
world.  The  day  that  comes  as  a  thief  is  the  day  when  the 
elements  melt  with  fervent  heat,  the  earth  also  and  the 
works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up.  Christ’s  com¬ 
ing  marks  the  end  of  the  world. 

(g) 

Jno.  5:28,  29.  The  hour  is  coming  in  which  all  that  are  in  the 
graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth;  they  that  have 
done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  and  they  that  have  done 
evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  judgment. 

These  verses  show  that  the  just  and  unjust  will  rise 
at  the  same  time  and  not  a  thousand  years  apart. 

(h)  Matt.  25:31  ff,  Show  Christ’s  coming  followed 
by  the  general  judgment.  By  no  possibility  of  sane  in¬ 
terpretation  can  this  mean  a  judgment  of  nations  as  such, 
prior  to  the  millennium,  as  Dr.  Schofield  declares.  The 


ESCHATOLOGY 


339 


grounds  of  the  judgment,  the  sentence  pronounced,  the  des¬ 
tiny  assigned  are  out  of  all  keeping  with  such  view. 

The  terms  apply  to  individuals  and  not  to  nations. 
“Everlasting  punishment”,  and  “life  eternal,”  have  no  ap¬ 
plicability  to  nations. 

(i)  Christ  and  Paul  take  occasion  to  discourage  the 
expectation  of  an  early  millennial  kingdom. 

This  expectation  gained  some  currency  among  the  early 
disciples.  Inheriting  from  Judaism  the  idea  of  an  earthly 
reign,  they  looked  for  Christ  to  set  up  such  a  kingdom 
while  he  was  on  earth.  After  his  death  some  still  clung 
to  the  hope  of  a  speedy  return  and  an  earthly  reign.  This 
however  was  not  consistent  with  Christ’s  own  teaching, 
as  the  following  will  show. 

Tne  parable  of  the  leaven  shows  the  kingdom  work¬ 
ing  gradually  till  the  world  is  permeated  with  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel.  The  claim  that  the  leaven  does  not  repre¬ 
sent  the  kingdom  is  too  preposterous  to  require  refutation. 

The  parable  of  the  ten  virgins  represents  the  bride¬ 
groom  as  tarrying. — Matt.  25:1 — 13. 

The  parable  of  the  talents  shows  the  lord  of  the  ser¬ 
vants  absent  “a  long  time,”  Matt.  25:14 — 30. 

The  parable  of  the  pounds,  Lk.  19:11 — 27,  was  spoken 
expressly  to  correct  the  mistake  of  a  speedy  consummation. 

Christ  bids  the  Apostles  go  forth  and  make  disciples 
of  all  nations,  Matt.  28:19.  They  could  not  rationally  ex¬ 
pect  this  to  be  done  in  a  few  years.  When  the  Apostles 
asked  Christ  before  his  ascension  if  he  would  at  that  time 
restore  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  he  answered  by  telling  them 
that  they  must  be  his  witnesses  to  the  uttermost  part  of 
the  earth.  All  this  was  entirely  contrary  to  the  expec¬ 
tation  of  a  speedy  coming.  And  further,  four  of  the  para¬ 
bles  in  Matt.  13  represent  the  kingdom  by  processes  of 
growth. 

The  Apostle  Paul  too  has  written  some  things  that 
look  the  same  way. 

Rom.  11:25.  Blindness  in  part  hath  happened  to  Israel  until 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  The  fulness  of  the  Gentiles 
would  not  be  accomplished  in  a  few  brief  years;  generations  of  toil 
lay  between  those  early  disciples  and  that  blessed  fulness. 

When  the  expectation  of  a  speedy  coming  came  to  a 
climax  in  the  Thessalonian  church,  Paul  wrote  his  second 
epistle  to  correct  that  mistake. 


340 


ESCHATOLOGY 


l 


“Be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind  or  troubled,  neither  by 
spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor  by  letter  as  from  us  that  the  day 
of  the  Lord  is  at  hand,  or  “is  close”  or  (Lightfoot)  “is 
imminent.” 

He  goes  on  then  to  give  some  reasons  why  it  was  not 
to  be  regarded  by  them  as  imminent. 

Thus  we  find  a  considerable  body  of  teaching  that  was 
intended  to  counteract  the  mistake  of  some  of  the  early 
disciples  that  Christ’s  second  advent  was  soon  to  be  ex¬ 
pected. 

The  idea  persisted  in  some  quarters  of  the  early  church 
till  the  first  Ecumenical  Council  which  definitely  decided 
that  such  was  not  the  purport  of  Christ’s  teaching.  After 
that  the  early  Chiliasm  died  away. 

(j)  The  kingdom  is  in  the  world  at  the  present  time. 

Dan.  2:44.  And  in  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the  God  of 
heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed. 

This  is  a  prophecy  of  Christ’s  kingdom  to  be  set  up  in 
the  days  of  those  earthly  rulers. 

Dan.  7 :23 — 27.  This  is  a  further  prophecy  of  the  king¬ 
dom  in  the  days  of  the  fourth  beast.  Some  think  that  this 
fourth  beast  was  Rome.  Others,  and  perhaps  this  fits  Dan¬ 
iel’s  story  best,  think  that  the  fourth  beast  was  the  com¬ 
bined  powers  of  Syria  and  Egypt  which  held  the  stage  in 
that  critical  time  of  Jewish  history  which  the  closing  chap¬ 
ters  of  Daniel  describe. 

Matt.  6:38.  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteous¬ 
ness.  This  is  set  forth  as  a  present  duty  for  every  man. 

Matt.  13:38.  The  field  is  the  world,  the  good  seed  are  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  kingdom. 

Matt.  18:4.  Whosoever  shall  humble  himself  as  a  little  child,  the 
same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Matt.  21:31.  The  publicans  and  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  before  you. 

Matt.  21:43.  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you 
and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof. 

Mk.  12:34.  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Lk.  6:20.  Blessed  be  ye  poor  for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Lk.  16:16.  Since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  preached 
and  every  man  presseth  into  it. 

Lk.  10:9,  11.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you. 

Lk.  12:32.  It  is  your  Lather’s  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the 
kingdom. 

Jno.  3:3.  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God. 

Who  can  imagine  that  this  is  a  millennial  kingdom  not 
yet  set  up? 


ESCHATOLOGY 


341 


Rom.  14:17.  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink, 
but  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

As  these  are  graces  of  the  Spirit  now,  the  kingdom  is  here  now. 

Col.  1:13.  Who  hath  delivered  us  from  the  powers  of  dark¬ 
ness  and  hath  translated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son. 

From  these  passages  it  is  clear  that  the  kingdom  is 
in  the  world  at  the  present  time;  not  merely  when  Christ 
was  on  earth,  nor  when  the  millennial  age  shall  arrive, 
but  here  and  now  in  the  visible  and  invisible  church  of  God. 

Is  Christ  a  king  now?  If  he  is,  then  there  must  be 
a  kingdom  over  which  he  rules.  If  he  is  not,  then  the  work 
of  salvation  goes  on  without  his  kingly  office,  and  thus  his 
kingly  office  would  not  be  essential  to  salvation. 

Grouping  some  teachings  already  observed  we  have 
these  additional  paragraphs: 

(k)  All  believers  will  be  raised  at  Christ’s  coming 
at  the  last  day  and  there  will  be  a  simultaneous  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  the  just  and  the  unjust. 

Jno.  6:39.  And  this  is  the  Father’s  will, — that  of  ALL  that  he 
hath  given  me  I  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at 
the  last  day. 

Jno.  6:40.  And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me  that  EVERY 
ONE  which  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  him  may  have  ever¬ 
lasting  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

I  Cor.  15:23.  They  that  are  Christ’s  at  his  coming;  evidently 
all  that  are  his. 

The  premillennialist  says  some  at  Christ’s  coming  and 
some  no  one  knows  when  if  ever.  Since  the  premillennial¬ 
ist  makes  Rev.  20:11  ff  to  refer  to  the  wicked  only  there 
is  no  provision  for  the  righteous  dead  to  be  judged  at  all 
nor  raised  at  all  after  the  advent. 

The  Bible  has  little  to  say  as  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  wicked;  but  its  few  references  show  them  raised  to¬ 
gether  with  the  righteous. 

Some  passages  on  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous 
make  no  mention  of  the  wicked.  This  feature  has  been 
seized  upon  by  premillennialists  as  evidence  that  they  are 
not  raised  together.  But  their  argument  is  a  non-sequitur, 
and  a  species  of  fallacious  reasoning. 

The  wicked  are  not  mentioned  in  those  passages  with 
the  just,  not  because  they  do  not  rise  at  the  same  time, 
but  because  they  do  not  rise  on  the  same  principle;  be¬ 
cause  not  united  to  Christ.  In  those  passages  the  Apostles 


342 


ESCHATOLOGY 


are  speaking  only  of  believers,  the  wicked  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  point  in  view  and  so  are  not  mentioned.  The 
Socinians  and  Remonstrants  used  those  same  passages  to 
prove  that  the  wicked  do  not  rise  at  all;  the  same  species 
of  fallacious  reasoning. 

It  is  often  said  that  ek  nekron  e.  g.  Acts  4:2,  expres¬ 
ses  an  “out-resurrection  from  the  dead,”  implying  that 
some  are  raised  up  and  out  from  others  who  are  left  be¬ 
hind.  The  argument  will  not  bear  examination,  for  ref¬ 
erences  are  found  to  both  classes,  and  to  Christ  himself, 
without  the  ek. 

The  following  few  passages  bear  on  the  resurrection 
of  both  classes : 

Dan.  12:2.  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth 
shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  ever¬ 
lasting  contempt; — “at  that  time.” 

Jno.  5:28,  29.  The  hour  is  coming  in  which  all  that  are  in  the 
graves  shall  hear  his  voice  and  shall  come  forth,  they  that  have 
done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done 
evil  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation. 

This  is  absolutely  conclusive  of  the  simultaneous  ris¬ 
ing  of  the  just  and  unjust.  And  the  hour  cannot  be  leng¬ 
thened  to  include  an  age,  for  resurrection  is  said  to  be  in 
a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye;  and  whatever  the 
premillennialist  might  claim  as  to  a  continuous  age  for 
the  resurrection  to  life,  he  would  not  be  so  willing  to  make 
that  claim  of  the  resurrection  to  damnation;  and  the  term 
“hour”  applies  to  both. 

Acts  24:15.  And  have  hope  toward  God  which  they  themselves 
also  allow  that  there  will  be  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and 
unjust. 

There  is  here  at  least  no  hint  of  separate  resurrections. 

Rev.  20:11-15.  This  is  evidently  a  general  resurrection. 
If  this  refers  to  the  wicked  only,  what  provision  is  left  for 
the  resurrection  of  millennial  and  post  millennial  saints? 

Thus  the  Scriptures  associate  the  resurrection  of  the 
just  and  unjust  and  the  only  fair  conclusion  is  that  it  is 
a  simultaneous  resurrection.  No  other  conclusion  seems 
rational  especially  in  the  light  of  Jno.  5:28,  29. 

(1)  The  Judgment  of  the  righteous  and  wicked  is 
one  transaction  and  simultaneous. 

Matt.  10:32,  33.  — taken  with  Mk.  8:38  shows  judgment  of  both 
classes  when  Christ  comes. 

Matt.  7:21,  23.  Reception  and  rejection  in  that  day. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


343 


Matt.  16:27.  For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of 
his  Father  with  his  angels;  and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man  ac¬ 
cording  to  his  works. 

Matt.  25:16 — 30.  The  parable  of  the  talents  shows  that  the 
reckoning  is  all  one  transaction  for  the  faithful  and  the  unfaithful. 

Matt.  25:31 — 46.  This  shows  the  judgment  of  all,  evil  and 
good  in  one  great  assize. 

Matt.  13:38 — 43.  Parable  of  the  tares, — judgment  at  the  time 
of  Christ’s  coming,  the  wicked  judged  then,  not  a  thousand  years 
after;  the  tares  gathered  first. 

Jno.  5:28,  29.  Here  resurrection  and  judgment  are  combined; 
“all  that  are  in  their  graves,”  a  universal  event,  good  and  bad,  in 
one  “hour.” 

Whatever  may  be  said  as  to  the  length  of  the  hour,  here  is  the 
unity  of  the  period,  and  transaction;  as  against  the  separateness, 
and  multifarious  and  broken  transactions  of  the  premillennial  scheme. 

Acts  17:13.  Appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world. 
Here  is  all  the  world  in  judgment,  all  at  one  time;  no  dismembered 
parts  of  the  process  discernible. 

Rom.  2:5 — 16.  Will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds, 
to  some  eternal  life,  to  some  wrath,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge 
the  secrets  of  men.  One  day,  one  transaction,  both  classes. 

II  Cor.  5:9 — 11.  We  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat 
of  Christ. 

Premillennialists  say  this  refers  only  to  the  righteous. 

II  The  ss.  1:6 — 10.  Recompense  tribulation  to  one,  rest  to  the 
other,  when  the  Lord  is  revealed  from  heaven.  The  wicked  are  “pun¬ 
ished  with  everlasting  destruction,”  “in  that  day.”  Here  both  classes 
get  recompense  at  the  same  time,  in  that  day;  therefore  not  a  divided 
judgment. 

II  Tim.  4:1.  Judge  the  quick  and  dead  at  his  appearing,  all  at 
his  appearing;  not  some  at  his  appearing  and  the  rest  a  thousand 
years  after. 

Rev.  20:11 — 15.  In  harmony  with  all  the  rest  doubtless  pictures 
a  simultaneous  and  universal  resurrection  and  judgment. 

How  strange  that,  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  the  pre- 
millennialist  will  deny  a  general  judgment. 

3.  As  to  Rev.  Chapter  20,  General  Remarks. 

(a)  Revelation  is  apocalyptical,  mystical,  obscure; 
and  this  passage  as  much  as  any.  We  should  formulate 
our  doctrines  from  the  plain  parts  of  Scripture  and  inter¬ 
pret  the  obscure  by  the  obvious  and  not  vice  versa. 

(b)  The  Premillennialist  understands  the  second  ad¬ 
vent  to  be  described  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  and  the 
opening  verses  of  the  twentieth  chapter  to  describe  some 
concurrent  circumstances. 

(c)  And  I  saw  the  souls  of  those  that  were  behead¬ 
ed.”  Observe  the  mention  of  souls,  not  bodies.  If  John 
meant  a  literal  resurrection,  he  should  have  said  bodies. 


344 


ESCHATOLOGY 


(d)  The  scene  where  the  souls  are  seems  to  be  heaven 
and  not  earth,  as  shown  by  Rev.  6:9,  where  John  sees  the 
souls  of  those  slain  for  the  word  of  God.  Where  are  they  ? 
Under  the  altar,  in  heaven,  as  indicated  in  the  following 
verses  10  and  11. 

(e)  The  living  and  reigning  is  described  as  “the  first 
resurrection.” 

Dr.  Shedd  declares  this  refers  to  regeneration.  And 
it  is  to  be  remembered  in  this  connection  that  it  is  re¬ 
generation  and  not  literal  resurrection  that  delivers  from 
eternal  or  the  second  death.  And  further,  regeneration 
is  spoken  of  as  a  resurrection, — See  Ephes.  2:6,  Ephes.  5:14, 
and  Col.  3:1. 

(f)  Rev.  20:4,  5.  “Lived  again,  lived  not  again,” — 

the  word  “again”  is  not  in  the  Revised  Version. 

(g)  Rev.  20:4.  “But  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not 

till  the  thousand  years  were  ended,” — these  words  are 

omitted  from  some  manuscripts,  especially  the  Vatican  and 
the  Syriac. 

“This  is  the  first  resurrection,” — no  “is”  in  the  orig¬ 
inal.  It  may  therefore  be  read,  “This  resurrection  is  the 
first.”  And  whether  it  means  first  in  order  of  time,  or 
first  in  dignity  and  importance  is  all  an  unsettled  question. 

Observe  too  that  there  is  no  mention  of  a  second  resur¬ 
rection;  none  so  enumerated,  but  a  general  resurrection 
is  implied  at  the  close  of  the  chapter  when  “the  dead  small 
and  great  stand  before  God.” 

4.  Interpretation  of  Rev.  Chapters  19  and  20. 

The  nineteenth  chapter  of  Revelation  records  a  scene 
in  which  one  rides  on  a  white  horse,  with  a  sharp  sword 
in  his  mouth,  and  he  is  called  Faithful  and  True,  Word  of 
God,  and  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords.  This  rider  and 
his  armies  contend  with  their  enemies,  conquer  them,  and 
cast  them  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone. 

The  Postmillennialist  regards  this,  as  also  similar  vis¬ 
ions  in  Revelation,  as  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
over  all  enemies  and  opposition,  and  by  the  ordinary  means 
of  the  gospel.  The  sword  that  proceeds  out  of  the  mouth 
of  the  rider  is,  according  to  Biblical  symbolism,  the  word 
of  God;  and  the  triumph  effected  by  it  is  the  triumph 


ESCHATOLOGY 


345 


of  the  gospel  or  the  cause  of  Christ  in  the  world.  Also, 
the  amplified  details  show  this  to  be  an  extended  process 
rather  than  a  sudden  event. 

The  Premillennialist  regards  this  record  as  the  proph¬ 
ecy  of  the  Second  Advent,  and  the  destruction  of  the  Anti- 
Christ,  preliminary  to  the  thousand  years  of  chapter  twenty. 

Their  order  is:  the  First  Resurrection  or  Rapture; 
Seven  years  of  Tribulation;  the  Coming,  and  Destruction 
of  Anti-Christ;  the  Thousand  Years  in  which  the  world 
is  to  be  converted  after  the  failure  of  the  gospel;  Satan 
loosed;  the  Second  Resurrection  and  Judgment  of  the  wicked 
only,  as  given  in  Rev.  20:11 — 15. 

According  to  the  Premillennialist  this  is  history  writ¬ 
ten  beforehand  and  in  chronological  order. 

We  cite  Clarence  Larkin,  author  of  “Dispensational 
Truth”  as  a  sample  of  this  view:  “The  Book  of  Revelation 
is  written  in  chronological  order.  After  the  fourth  chap¬ 
ter  the  church  is  seen  no  more  upon  the  earth  until  she 
appears  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  coming  with  the  Bride¬ 
groom  ‘from’  Heaven.  The  entire  time  between  these  two 
chapters  is  filled  with  appalling  judgments  that  fall  upon 
those  that  ‘dwell  upon  the  earth/  and  as  the  church  is 
not  of  the  earth,  but  is  supposed  to  ‘sit  together  in  heaven¬ 
ly  places  in  Christ  Jesus’  (Ephes.  2:6)  she  will  not  be 
among  those  who  ‘dwell  on  the  earth’  in  those  days.”  It 
would  be  interesting  to  note  the  inaccuracies  of  this  state¬ 
ment  but  we  must  keep  to  the  point  in  hand. 

If  this  is  history  written  beforehand,  or  as  is  some¬ 
times  said,  an  inspired  order  as  well  as  an  inspired  record, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  order  does  not  fit  the  Premillennial 
scheme. 

If  the  nineteenth  chapter  describes  the  conversion  of 
the  world  then  the  Premillennialist  should  insert  this  chap¬ 
ter  between  the  sixth  and  seventh  verses  of  chapter  twenty. 
For  according  to  that  scheme  the  conversion  of  the  world 
is  after  the  Coming,  after  the  Tribulation,  after  the  bind¬ 
ing  of  Satan,  and  well  within  the  thousand  years. 

But  if  the  nineteenth  chapter  does  not  describe  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  but  describes  the  Second  Com¬ 
ing  and  the  destruction  of  Anti-Christ,  the  order  is  still 
disrupted.  For  on  this  scheme  the  Anti-Christ  is  destroyed 
at  the  Second  Coming,  after  the  tribulation.  But  the  First 
Resurrection  or  Rapture  is  prior  to  the  Coming,  and  prior 


346 


ESCHATOLOGY 


to  the  destruction  of  Anti-Christ,  and  prior  to  the  Tribu¬ 
lation  also.  Therefore  the  Premillennialist  should  put 
Chapter  20:4,  5,  which  describes,  on  his  view,  the  First 
Resurrection,  or  Rapture,  before  the  nineteenth  which  de¬ 
scribes  the  Second  Coming  and  Anti-Christ.  And  as  well 
should  he  make  20:4,  5  precede  all  the  chapters  describing 
the  Tribulation.  We  should  therefore  expect,  on  the  Pre- 
millennial  scheme,  to  find  Rev.  20:4,  5  at  the  beginning 
of  chapter  four. 

The  Postmillennial  view  regards  the  triumph  of  the 
gospel  in  the  world  as  preceding  and  issuing  in  the  mil¬ 
lennium,  which  better  corresponds  to  the  place  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  chapter  in  the  account,  if  we  are  to  consider  a  defi¬ 
nite  order  in  the  narrative.  And  further  that  chapter  20:11 
supplies  the  reference  to  the  final  coming  if  any  such  ref¬ 
erence  is  needed. 

Rev.  19:20  puts  the  beast  and  the  false  prophet  in¬ 
to  the  lake  of  fire.  Now,  since  the  beast  and  the  prophet 
were  undoubtedly  the  civil  and  religious  powers  of  old 
pagan  Rome,  this  nineteenth  chapter  has  to  do  with  the 
conquest  of  the  Roman  empire  by  the  gospel,  or  the  sword 
that  proceeded  out  of  the  rider's  mouth.  This  fixes  the 
place  in  history  of  the  nineteenth  chapter,  and  shows  that 
the  premillennial  interpretation  ignores  the  facts  of  the 
book. 

Rev.  20:4 — 6. 

This  difficult  passage  has  received  various  interpreta¬ 
tions,  and  no  one  seems  to  be  entirely  without  difficulties. 
Often  we  may  not  be  able  to  tell  certainly  what  a  passage 
means  even  when  reasonably  certain  as  to  what  it  does  not 
mean. 

The  following  interpretations  may  be  noted: 

First.  The  Premillennial  interpretation. 

All  the  righteous  dead  are  raised,  and  dwell  and  reign 
on  earth  a  thousand  years;  and  the  rest  of  the  dead,  the 
wicked,  are  not  raised  till  the  final  resurrection  described 
in  verses  11 — 14,  which  is  a  resurrection  and  judgment  of 
the  wicked  only. 

Second.  A  few  martyrs  and  confessors  are  raised  to 
share  the  glory  of  the  millennial  age.  This  view  may  be 
held  by  postmillennialists  as  well  as  by  premillennialists. 

Third.  These  verses  describe,  not  a  bodily  resurrec¬ 
tion,  but  the  glorious  character  of  the  millennial  church. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


347 


The  church  of  that  day  will  be  as  though  the  martyrs  had 
risen,  i.  e.  possessed  with  the  spirit  and  character  of  the 
martyrs.  Their  spirit  and  zeal  will  reappear;  their  cause 
crushed  by  persecution  and  apostasy  will  rise  and  triumph. 

As  Elijah  was  expected  to  come  again,  and  came  not 
in  person,  but  in  a  successor,  as  John  Baptist  came  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,  and  Christ  said:  This  is  Elijah 
which  was  to  come,  so  in  the  millennial  age  the  church  will 
reappear  in  the  power  and  spirit  of  the  martyrs  and  con¬ 
fessors. 

The  “living  and  reigning”  of  the  saints  is  said  to  be 
the  “first  resurrection.”  And  this  living  and  reigning  of 
the  saints  is  the  church  triumphant  in  the  millennial  day, 
the  resurrection  of  the  cause  that  was  slain  by  the  sword, 
and  burned  in  the  persecutor’s  fire.  The  saints  and  church 
at  length  come  into  their  own.  The  church,  Phoenix-like, 
rises  from  its  ashes.  A  similar  imagery  is  used  in  Ezek. 
37:12,  when  God  says  to  Israel  in  captivity:  “0  my  people 
I  will  open  your  graves,  and  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of 
your  graves,  and  bring  you  into  the  land  of  Israel.”  In 
both  cases  no  literal  resurrection  intended,  but  the  restora¬ 
tion  and  triumph  of  God’s  people. 

Verse  five  says:  “And  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not 
again  TILL  the  thousand  years  were  finished.”  This  may 
fairly  imply  that  they  WILL  live  again  at  the  end  of  this 
period;  not  merely  raised  at  the  final  resurrection,  but 
LIVE  in  the  little  season”  after  the  millennium. 

Now  make  this  passage  a  figurative  representation  of 
these  succeeding  events  and  the  contrast  or  antithesis  is 
clear.  The  saint  party  lives  a  thousand  years  in  triumph, 
while  the  other  party  is  subdued.  But  after  the  thousand 
years  the  serpent  party  “lives  again.”  It  had  been  over¬ 
thrown,  now  reappears  and  “lives  again”  and  the  old  con¬ 
flict  is  renewed.  This  puts  a  clear  antitheis  between  the 
living  and  reigning  of  saints,  and  the  rest  that  lived  not 
TILL  the  thousand  years  were  finished. 

Thus  we  have  the  living  and  reigning  of  the  saints 
party,  the  living  again  of  the  serpent  party,  then  the  final 
conflict  and  deliverance,  and  the  resurrection  and  judgment 
of  all  the  dead. 

This  was  the  view  of  St.  Augustine,  is  held  by  Dr. 
A.  H.  Strong,  and  was  ably  defended  by  Dr.  David  Brown. 

Fourth.  This  vision  shows  the  saints  and  martyrs 
in  heaven.  It  was  meant  to  show  that  the  redeemed  are 


348 


ESCHATOLOGY 


in  heaven  safe  from  all  the  persecutions  that  raged  below. 

It  was  written  by  John  to  encourage  the  church  facing 
the  persecutions  of  that  and  subsequent  times.  The  saints 
of  John’s  day  needed  just  such  encouragement.  It  nerved 
them  to  faithfulness  to  be  shown  the  beatific  glory  of  the 
martyr  when  the  Roman  sword  had  done  its  worst.  It  was 
not  meant  to  show  the  raising  of  bodies,  but  the  raising 
of  souls  to  their  heavenly  home.  “And  I  saw  the  souls,  etc.” 

This  is  the  first  resurrection,  the  entrance  upon  heav¬ 
enly  joys;  and  the  second  resurrection  is  the  bodily  resur¬ 
rection  of  all  the  dead  at  the  end  of  the  world. 

This  is  the  view  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  and  Prof.  B.  B. 
Warfield. 

Fifth.  The  first  resurrection  is  regeneration  which 
alone  delivers  from  the  second  death.  There  are  several 
passages  that  speak  of  regeneration  or  the  new  life  as 
a  resurrection.  This  view  is  practically  involved  in  the 
preceding. 

Remarks  on  these  views. 

The  first  or  Premillennial  view  encounters  serious  dif¬ 
ficulties. 

It  contradicts  the  plain  and  repeated  statements  of 
Christ  that  the  resurrection  is  at  the  last  day. 

It  contradicts  the  plain  meaning  of  Christ  in  Jno.  5:28 
that  the  just  and  unjust  are  raised  at  the  same  time. 

It  is  inconsistent  with  the  close  of  this  same  chapter 
where  it  is  said:  “the  dead  small  and  great  stand  before 
God,  and  the  books  were  opened,  and  the  book  of  life,  and 
the  dead  were  judged  out  of  the  things  written  in  the 
books;  and  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  that  were  in  it,  and 
death  and  hell  gave  up  the  dead  that  were  in  them,”  plainly 
a  general  resurrection  and  a  general  judgment;  especially 
since  the  book  of  life  was  there. 

It  contradicts  Matt.  25:81  ff,  which  shows  the  final 
judgment  to  be  at  Christ’s  coming. 

It  reads  into  the  passage,  all  the  righteous,  when  only 
martyrs  are  mentioned.  It  makes  an  obscure  passage  the 
key  to  explain  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures;  the  true  rule 
of  interpretation  is  to  explain  the  obscure  by  the  obvious. 
Its  supposed  antithesis  between  the  saints  and  “the  rest 
of  the  dead”  is  not  so  good  as  appears  at  first  sight;  for  ‘ 
it  does  not  make  “the  rest  of  the  dead”  to  live  on  earth  as 
it  did  the  saints,  but  only  to  be  resurrected  for  judgment. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


349 


The  second  view  expresses  the  most  that  can  be  claimed 
for  a  theory  of  bodily  resurrection. 

The  third  view  has  the  weight  of  honored  names  and 
makes  a  clear  antithesis  with  the  expression  “the  rest  of 
the  dead.”  The  saint  party  did  rise  and  live,  the  serpent 
party  also  rose  and  lived.  No  bodily  resurrection  in  either 
case :  that  occurs  at  the  end  when  the  dead  small  and  great 
stand  before  God. 

The  fourth  view  makes  the  antithesis  not  between  the 
righteous  dead  and  the  wicked  dead  but  between  a  spir¬ 
itual  resurrection  and  a  bodily  resurrection,  the  ascension 
of  the  soul  and  the  raising  of  the  body. 

In  this  connection  note  what  is  the  antecedent  of  “this,” 
(this  is  the  first  resurrection).  Living  and  reigning  with 
Christ,  and  not  a  bodily  resurrection  is  called  “the  first 
resurrection.” 

The  choice  evidently  lies  between  the  third  and  fourth 
views;  but  if  a  bodily  resurrection  is  demanded  the  second 
view  fills  all  that  can  be  strictly  claimed  from  a  rigid  ren¬ 
dering  of  this  passage. 

Section  VII.  Christ  Already  Come  the  Second  Time 
and  Always  Present. 

Another  view  of  the  Second  Coming  is  that  Christ  has 
come  and  is  now  here  in  his  spiritual  presence  in  the  world. 

The  time  of  his  coming  was  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem. 

The  texts  which  rightly  enough  speak  of  his  coming 
at  that  time,  lend  themselves  to  this  view.  Also  Matt. 
28:20,  Lo  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world. 

Thus  the  Christian  has  the  comfort  and  help  of  Christ’s 
constant  presence. 

This  view  is  not  largely  held,  but  is  maintained  by 
some  scholarly  men,  and  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the 
view  of  the  Russellites  who  also  hold  that  Christ  has  al¬ 
ready  come. 

Section  VIII.  The  Non-millennial  View. 

This  view  is  that  the  Bible  predicts  no  millennium  be¬ 
fore  or  after  Christ’s  coming;  that  there  is  no  program  of 
the  ages  revealed  to  man;  that  Christ  will  return  in  visible 


350 


ESCHATOLOGY 

form  but  no  one  knows  the  time  or  preliminary  events. 
That  coming-  will  be  the  consummation  of  earthly  history; 
and  beyond  the  fact  of  his  coming  the  Bible  does  not  go 
into  details  leading  up  to  it  or  following  it. 


Chapter  VI.  Future  Punishment. 

Various  Views. 

1.  Universalism.  Refuted  by: 

Rom.  6:23.  The  wages  of  sin  is  death. 

Lk.  16:19  f¥.  Parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus. 

Jno.  3:36.  He  that  believeth  not  shall  not  see  life. 

2.  Restorationism. 

Proceeds  on  the  ground  that  reformation  is  the  only 
purpose  of  punishment. 

Premise  is  false  and  conclusion  also. 

Punishment  is  for  warning,  for  vindication  of  moral 
government  and  justice. 

Restorationists  appeal  to  Rom.  5:18,  II  Pet.  8:9.  Acts 
3:21. 

Restorationists  appeal  to  I  Cor.  15:25,  Ephes.  1:9,  10, 
Phil.  2:10,  11. 

Answer : 

Lk.  16:26.  A  great  gulf  fixed. 

Mk.  9:46.  Where  their  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched. 

Habit  tends  to  fixedness.  Character  tends  to  final  per¬ 
manence. 

3.  Annihilation. 

Based  on  the  view  that  death  means  non-existence, 
and  that  to  destroy  means  to  annihilate. 

Premise  is  wrong. 

Bible  teaches  the  never-dying  nature  of  the  soul. 

4.  The  Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  Endless  Punish¬ 
ment. 

(a)  Not  a  pleasant  doctrine  and  not  taught  to  gain 
favor  with  men  but  because  it  is  the  plain  teaching  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Scriptures. 


ESCHATOLOGY 


351 


(b)  Proof. 

Matt.  25:46.  And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punish¬ 
ment;  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal. 

Observe  that  the  same  word  qualifies  the  punishment  that  also 
qualifies  the  life  of  the  righteous. 

Mk.  9:43—48. 

II  Thess.  1:9.  Punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the 
presence  of  Lord. 

Objections:- — 

(1)  Not  just  to  inflict  endless  penalty  for  temporary 
sinning. 

Endless  punishment  is  the  penalty  for  ENDLESS  sin¬ 
ning.  How  long  may  sin  endure?  So  long  may  punish¬ 
ment  continue. 

(2)  Makes  God  cruel.  Ans.  Sin  inflicts  its  own  pen¬ 
alty.  Sin’s  punishment  is  sin’s  effect;  but  sin’s  effect  in 
character  becomes  the  cause  of  further  effect,  and  thus 
every  act  becomes  an  eternal  cause. 


Chapter  VII.  Second  Probation. 

(a)  Statement. 

Second  probation  means  a  second  chance  or  opportun¬ 
ity  to  accept  the  offer  of  salvation  between  death  and  the 
resurrection,  especially  for  those  whose  opportunities  were 
meager  in  this  life. 

(b)  Arguments  from  the  New  Testament. 

Certain  passages  from  the  New  Testament  are  quoted 
to  support  this  view. 

Lk.  19:10.  The  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost.  The  inference  is  that  as  there  are  lost  ones  in 
the  state  of  the  dead,  that  therefore  Christ’s  mission  is  as  really  to 
them  as  to  the  living  in  this  world. 

I  Tim.  2:4 — 6.  Who  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved — who  gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time. 

I  Jno.  2:2.  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  and  not  for 
ours  only  but  also  for  the  whole  world. 

Matt.  12:32.  Whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost  it 
shall  not  be  forgiven  him  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  that  to 
come. 

The  inference  is  that  other  sins  MAY  be  forgiven  in  the  world 
to  come. 

I  Pet.  3:19,  20.  Christ  preaching  to  the  spirits  in  prison  is  also 
urged  as  favoring  a  second  probation.  This  is  based  on  what  is 


352 


ESCHATOLOGY 


probably  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the  text.  For  an  exhaustive  dis¬ 
cussion  of  this  text  see  S.  D.  F.  Salmond’s — “The  Christian  Doctrine 
of  Immortality.” 

Answer:  It  is  replied  to  this  argument,  that  these 
texts  are  pressed  unduly  in  order  to  prove  more  than  they 
really  state. 

Something  more  explicit  than  this  must  be  assigned 
as  a  Scriptural  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  Second  Probation. 

(c)  Some  additional  arguments  are  as  follows: — 

First,  Christ  raised  certain  ones  from  the  dead,  e.  g. 
the  youth  of  Nain,  showing  that  the  time  of  grace  does 
not  expire  at  death. 

Second,  If  man’s  destiny  is  settled  at  death,  then  all 
that  die  as  heathen  are  under  an  absolute  decree  of  re¬ 
probation. 

Third,  If  destiny  is  fixed  at  death,  “nothing  of  essential 
importance  remains  for  the  judgment,  and  no  space  left 
for  a  progress  of  believers  who  are  still  not  sinless  at  the 
moment  of  death.  If  holy  directly  after  death  sanctifica¬ 
tion  would  be  effected  by  separation  from  the  body;  the 
seat  of  evil  must  therefore  be  found  in  the  body,  and  sanc¬ 
tification  would  be  realized  through  a  mere  suffering  of 
death  in  a  physical  process  instead  of  through  the  will.” 
— Dorner. 

(d)  Criticism  and  Counter-proof. 

These  arguments  are  far  from  convincing. 

The  case  of  the  youth  of  Nain  and  similar  examples 
are  entirely  exceptional  and  may  be  ruled  out  of  the  argu¬ 
ment. 

That  all  the  heathen  are  reprobated  without  a  second 
probation,  the  advocates  of  sovereign  election  would  not 
admit  for  an  instant. 

The  last  argument  is  a  sheer  non-sequiter.  One  can 
hardly  conceive  how  a  serious  mind  could  put  it  forward. 
No  one  ever  formulated  such  a  view  but  he  who  fabricated 
a  straw  man.  In  all  the  realm  of  Christian  theology  no 
one  ever  conceived  of  death  as  a  sanctifying  agency,  nor 
attributed  the  holiness  of  saints  to  a  separation  from  the 
body.  That  is  Manichseism  pure  and  simple ;  but  not  Chris¬ 
tian  theology. 

The  Westminster  Catechism,  question  37,  states:  “The 
souls  of  believers  are  AT  their  death  MADE  perfect  in 


ESCHATOLOGY 


353 


holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory,”  but  this 
in  no  wise  attributes  to  death  efficiency  in  sanctification. 

Christ  said  to  the  thief  on  the  cross:  “This  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise.” 

The  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus  represents  each  as 
going  immediately  to  his  destiny,  and  the  “great  gulf  fixed” 
admits  of  no  transition. 

Heb.  9:27.  It  is  appointed  to  men  once  to  die  but  after  this 
the  judgment. 

Rev.  14:13.  Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord  from 
henceforth. 

Acts  7 :59.  And  they  stoned  Stephen  calling  on  God  and  say¬ 
ing:  Lord  Jesus  receive  my  spirit. 

Phil.  1:23.  For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire 
to  depart  and  to  be  with  Christ  which  is  far  better. 

II  Cor.  5:8.  We  are  confident,  I  say,  and  willing  rather  to  be 
absent  from  the  body  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord. 

These  texts  tell  strongly  for  an  immediate  entrance 
upon  final  destiny  at  the  event  of  death. 


Chapter  VIII.  Heaven. 


1.  A  place. 

Jno.  14:2.  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you,  that  where  I  am, 
.  there  ye  may  be  also. 

Some  think  that  this  renovated  world  will  be  heaven. 

2.  A  state 

(a)  Of  holiness. 

Heb.  12:14.  Holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord. 
Rev.  21:27.  There  shall  in  no  wise  enter  in  anything  that  de- 
fileth. 

(b)  Of  happiness. 

Ps.  16:11.  In  thy  presence  is  fulness  of  joy;  at  thy  right  hand 
are  pleasure  forever  more. 

Rev.  7 :16,  17.  They  shall  hunger  no  more,  etc. 

3.  The  blessedness  of  the  saved  will  consist  in: — 

(a)  Perfection  of  nature. 

(b)  Indefectibility,  or  absence  of  danger  of  apostasy. 

(c)  The  presence  of  the  Lord. 

(d)  The  company  of  the  redeemed. 


354 


ESCHATOLOGY 


(e)  Heavenly  employments. 

(f)  A  thousand  things  that  eye  hath  not  seen  nor 
ear  heard. 

4.  The  Bible  has  given  us  at  least  a  meager  descrip¬ 
tion  of  heaven. 

We  would  not  expect  to  find,  and  it  is  not  essential  to 
have,  an  extended  delineation  of  a  world  which  we  are  not 
yet  fitted  to  comprehend.  As  well  might  we  endeavor  to 
put  the  ocean  into  a  very  small  cup  as  to  try  to  bring 
the  future  life  within  the  compass  of  a  finite  mind. 

Yet  God  has  recognized  man’s  need  of  incentive  and 
encouragement  and  here  and  there  has  pulled  back  the  veil. 

Besides  small  and  detached  passages  there  is  one  of 
considerable  length.  Revelation  21,  and  five  verses  of 
chapter  22  are  evidently  intended  to  enlighten  us  on  the 
fact  and  some  circumstances  of  heaven. 

This  appears  from  the  fact  that  they  follow  the  scene 
of  final  judgment  at  the  close  of  the  twentieth  chapter  and 
present  us  therefore  with  post-judgment  scenes  and  con¬ 
ditions.  A  true  view  of  the  book  of  Revelation  will  recog¬ 
nize  some  regard  for  chronology  in  the  structure  of  the 
book. 

It  further  appears  from  the  condition  of  life  in  that 
New  Jerusalem;  no  death,  no  sorrow,  no  crying,  no  pain; 
from  the  absolute  separation  from  the  wickedness  that  filled 
the  world,  no  fearful,  unbelieving,  abominable,  murderers, 
fornicators,  sorcerers,  idolators,  and  liars:  from  the  gran¬ 
deur  of  the  city  as  described  by  the  angel;  from  the  gates 
that  are  never  closed,  being  far  removed  from  all  fears 
and  dangers  and  alarms,  no  enemy  to  shut  out,  no  danger 
to  break  in;  from  the  absence  of  earthly  phenomena,  no 
sun,  no  moon,  no  night;  from  the  statement  with  which 
the  chapter  opens:  “And  I  saw  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth,  for  the  first  heaven  and  first  earth  were  passed 
away,  and  there  was  no  more  sea.” 

From  all  this  it  is  plain  we  are  not  dealing  with  things 
as  they  present  themselves  in  this  world.  The  heart  of 
the  church  has  been  right  in  recognizing  in  this  “the  land 
that  is  fairer  than  day.” 

“Oh  that  home  of  the  soul,  in  my  visions  and 
dreams 

Its  bright  jasper  walls  I  can  see; 

Till  I  fancy  but  thinly  the  veil  intervenes, 

Between  that  fair  city  and  me.” 


APPENDIX  A. 


355 


Appendix  A.  The  System  of  Kant. 

Kant  in  opposition  to  the  impressionist  school,  affirmed 
the  intuitional  nature  of  much  or  all  of  our  knowledge.  He 
taught  that  the  objective  was  conditioned  by  the  subjective, 
that  the  mind  does  not  gain  any  true  conception  of  the 
object  from  the  object  itself;  but  places  upon  the  object 
its  own  a  priori  conceptions.  In  the  external  object  he 
distinguished  between  the  phenomena  and  the  noumena, 
or  the  thing  itself,  and  held  that  the  phenomena  gave  us 
no  true  conception  of  the  noumena  or  thing.  His  system 
was  therefore  agnostic  as  to  the  external  world,  and  speed¬ 
ily  led  to  idealism  or  the  denial  of  any  reality  in  the  ex¬ 
ternal  world. 

In  affirming  that  things  are  not  as  they  appear  to  us 
Kant  went  farther  than  even  his  own  premise  would  war¬ 
rant,  for  if  the  mind  is  incompetent  to  assert  that  things 
correspond  with  their  appearance,  it  is  certainly  incom¬ 
petent  to  affirm  that  they  do  not  so  correspond.  At  any 
rate  agnosticism  as  to  the  external  world  was  the  outcome 
of  his  philosophy. 

Kant  admitted  the  reality  of  an  external  world  but 
denied  that  it  could  be  known.  It  is  not  difficult  then  to 
understand  why  he  denied  the  validity  of  the  Cosmological 
and  Teleological  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God.  Any 
argument  resting  upon  the  facts  of  the  external  world 
would  be  inconsistent  with  his  metaphysics.  He  therefore 
exerted  all  his  powers  to  discredit  the  logic  of  the  argu¬ 
ments  in  question. 

But  Kant’s  system  had  even  more  serious  consequences. 
In  impeaching  the  law  of  our  nature  by  which  we  acquire 
a  knowledge  of  the  objective  world  he  casts  doubt  on  all 
the  laws  of  our  nature  whatsoever.  If  we  cannot  believe 
our  nature  in  one  respect  we  cannot  believe  it  in  any  re¬ 
spect.  If  imposed  upon  and  deceived  in  the  constitution 
of  our  nature  as  to  one  law  of  thought,  then  no  law  of 
thought  can  be  held  to  be  valid.  Not  even  the  law  that 
connects  the  premise  of  a  syllogism  with  the  conclusion 
is  valid  unless  the  faculties  and  processes  of  our  nature 
are  trustworthy.  The  logical  end  of  this  system  is  the 
denial  of  all  knowledge,  or  at  least  such  a  skepticism  in 
regard  to  it  as  to  destroy  its  value. 

But  the  far-reaching  results  of  this  transcendentalism 
go  deeper  even  than  this.  In  denying  the  objective  real- 


356 


APPENDIX  A. 


ity  of  space  and  time  and  making  them  only  a  form  of 
mental  furniture,  Kant  casts  doubt  on  the  reality  of  all 
existence,  if  indeed  he  does  not  make  it  entirely  incon¬ 
ceivable.  (See  further  McCosh’s  Intuitions  p.  203,  204.) 

Space  is  the  necessary  condition  of  external  existence. 
All  objective  things  exist  in  space;  if  space  has  no  objec¬ 
tive  reality  then  there  can  be  no  objective  reality  to  any 
external  thing. 

Time  is  essential  to  the  continuity  of  any  existing 
thing  even  to  the  processes  of  thought.  Thought  itself, 
is  impossible  without  time:  (unless  all  time  is  shrunk  in¬ 
to  one  indivisible  moment,  which  ceases  as  soon  as  it  be¬ 
gins  to  be).  Continuous  thought  requires  continuity  in 
time  as  a  condition  of  its  possibility.  If  space  and  time 
are  not  modes  of  real  existence  but  only  something  super¬ 
induced  upon  our  perceptions  by  the  mind  itself,  then  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  either  object  or  subject  can  have 
any  real  existence. 

Thus  Kant’s  system  of  transcendentalism  threw  doubt 
upon  the  reality  of  the  external  world,  and  even  upon  the 
reality  of  our  mental  processes.  In  fact  he  has  been  ac¬ 
cused  of  making  all  existence  not  only  doubtful  but  in¬ 
conceivable. 

Kant’s  disciples  carried  his  principles  to  their  logical 
conclusions,  and  infected  the  world  with  a  subtle  unbelief 
that  has  never  been  entirely  eradicated. 

Now  it  is  quite  possible  for  us  to  admit  the  intuitive 
character  of  our  ideas  of  space  and  time  without  denying 
their  objective  reality  and  thus  save  what  is  true  in  the 
system  of  Kant,  while  rejecting  the  negations  that  would 
land  us  in  philosophical  nihilism. 

Kant  after  establishing  the  fact  that  we  are  conscious 
of  personal  identity,  begins  to  throw  doubt  upon  the  reality 
of  that  consciousness,  on  the  ground  that  we  can’t  help 
believing  in  our  personal  existence,  or  our  identity  through 
any  chain  of  thought  or  experience. 

But  surely  the  necessity  of  such  an  intuition,  instead 
of  making  it  doubtful,  would  establish  it  beyond  doubt. 

He  says:  “We  know  ourselves  only  by  the  internal 
sense,”  (that  is  as  a  succession  of  distinct  states  of  mind) 
“and  therefore,  only  as  phenomena.” 

If  therefore  we  have  no  more  knowledge  of  self  as 
exhibiting  phenomena,  than  we  have  of  objects  as  exhibit¬ 
ing  phenomena,  the  knowledge  of  self  is  illusive  or  decep- 


APPENDIX  A. 


357 


tive;  and  doubt  is  thrown  on  our  own  existence.  The  true 
statement  of  the  case  is  that  we  know  ourselves  as  think¬ 
ing,  feeling,  willing,  or  in  this  or  that  state  of  mind,  that 
is  we  know  ourselves  in  the  concrete;  and  every  act  of  per¬ 
ception,  or  state  of  consciousness,  involves  a  knowledge  of 
self. 

Some  of  Kant’s  reviewers  think  that  he  possesses  one 
saving  feature  viz.  that  he  contradicts  himself.  For  while 
in  one  line  he  asserts  that  we  know  ourselves  only  as  phe¬ 
nomena,  in  another  line  he  says:  “My  own  existence  in¬ 
deed  is  not  a  phenomenon,  and  still  less  is  it  a  mere  il¬ 
lusion.” 

Now  I  think  it  is  entirely  doubtful  if  Kant  contradicts 
himself  in  this,  tnough  able  philosophers  have  brought  that 
charge.  In  fact  so  far  from  contradicting  himself,  he  is 
carrying  out  the  principles  of  his  philosophy  to  their  log¬ 
ical  conclusion.  It  would  have  been  far  better  for  Kant 
if  he  had  contradicted  himself.  He  would  have  stood  far 
higher  in  the  judgment  of  a  realistic  philosophy  if  his 
two  statements  could  be  considered  as  diametrical  oppo¬ 
sites.  Then  we  would  have  believed  his  latter  statement 
and  repudiated  the  former;  we  would  have  accepted  the 
declaration  as  meaning  that  he  directly  perceived  the  reality 
of  himself.  But  with  all  due  respect  for  some  of  Kant’s 
reviewers  I  perceive  clearly  enough  that  that  was  not  Kant’s 
meaning  and  in  fact  he  does  not  say  so. 

Just  as  Kant  looks  upon  the  external  world  as  so  much 
phenomena,  behind  which  exists  a  noumena  which  indeed 
is  real,  but  unknown,  so  he  applies  the  same  conception 
to  the  cognition  of  the  self.  He  knows  self  as  phenomena, 
back  of  that  phenomena  must  be  noumena,  as  the  substrat¬ 
um  of  the  phenomena;  but  of  which  we  know  nothing. 
The  subjective  noumena  is  real  but  just  as  vague  and  un¬ 
known  as  the  objective  noumena.  Thus  Kant  is  consist¬ 
ent  with  himself ;  he  was  too  shrewd  a  thinker  to  be  guilty 
of  such  inconsistency;  but  that  only  makes  his  case  the 
worse.  If  objective  phenomena  are  illusive  and  deceptive, 
and  subjective  phenomena  are  illusive  and  deceptive,  what 
becomes  of  any  certainty  or  indeed  of  any  reality?  Thus 
Kant’s  philosophy  lands  us  in  agnosticism  as  to  the  reality 
of  the  external  world  and  what  is  far  worse  it  lands  us  in 
agnosticism  as  to  the  reality  of  ourselves.  When  he  said, 
“we  know  ourselves  only  as  phenomena,”  he  was  true  to 
his  own  skepticism. 


358 


APPENDIX  A. 


Is  it  any  wonder  that  with  such  metaphysics  men  came 
to  deny  that  anything-  was  real? 

One  might  readily  infer  from  this,  what  Kant  finally 
concluded,  that  pure  metaphysics  must  be  impossible,  and 
that  there  is  no  such  science  as  Ontology, — all  attempts 
at  such  science  being  erroneous  and  illusive. 

Kant  does  not  deny  the  reality  of  self,  but  holds  that 
all  knowledge  of  self  is  an  illusion.  Here  is  his  argument: 
“Take  the  judgment:  ‘I  think  myself,’  ‘Ego  me  cogito.’ 
Here  are  two  things:  the  thinking  subject  I,  and  the 
thought-of  object,  me.  If  this  ‘me’  were  a  real  existence 
it  would  be  presented  to  us  through  some  intuition  of  the 
external  or  internal  sense,  since  thus  alone  can  any  actual 
existence  be  perceived.  But  it  is  not  so  presented  or  in¬ 
tuited,  and  therefore  it  is  a  mere  nonentity,  a  fiction  of 
thought.” 

Kant  supposes  that  the  ego  cannot  be  both  subject  and 
object  of  thought;  that  as  the  eye  needs  another  eye  to 
see  itself,  so  the  ego  would  need  another  ego  to  perceive 
itself. 

Kant’s  error  lies  in  making  consciousness  too  much 
like  a  sense.  It  may  be  true  that  the  eye  cannot  see  it¬ 
self;  but  it  is  not  true  that  the  self  cannot  contemplate 
itself.  The  self  has  the  power  to  hold  itself  in  contem¬ 
plation,  and  to  be  both  subject  and  object  in  the  process. 
Consciousness  is  not  just  like  an  external  sense, 

Kant  further  assumes,  or  seems  to,  that  whatever  is 
a  necessity  of  thought,  or  a  condition  of  thought  can¬ 
not  be  real.  It  seems  to  me  that  would  necessitate  its 
reality.  But  he  seems  to  think,  for  example,  that  because 
space  is  a  necessary  condition  of  perceiving  an  external 
object,  it  has  no  objective  reality,  but  is  only  a  mode  of 
thought; — that  because  the  ego  is  the  necessary  subject 
in  thinking  it  cannot  be  the  object  thought  of.  I  have 
mentioned  these  things  to  show  how  Kant’s  system  of 
psychology  created  agnosticism  in  regard  to  our  knowledge 
of  the  external  world,  and  even  in  regard  to  our  knowledge 
of  self. 

Kant  also  endeavored  to  show  that  contradictories  have 
equally  valid  proof ;  for  example,  whether  the  world  is 
finite  or  infinite,  whether  it  had  a  beginning  or  no  begin¬ 
ning.  The  two  being  contradictories  and  equally  well  prov¬ 
ed  casts  doubt  on  the  truth  of  either  or  both. 


APPENDIX  B. 


359 


Passing  by  the  fallacy  of  his  arguments  the  aim 
seems  to  be  to  discredit  the  certainty  of  our  knowledge 
gained  by  reasoning  processes,  as  well  as  that  gained  by 
perception  and  consciousness. 


Appendix  B.  Summary  of  Ritschlianism. 

1.  Its  theory  of  knowledge  is  that  of  Kant,  that  we 
have  no  knowledge  of  things,  but  only  of  phenomena.  It 
carries  out  the  distinction  of  Kant  between  the  theoretical 
and  practical  judgments.  The  theoretical  processes  have 
no  value  in  religion;  and  theology  must  present  its  case 
in  absolute  divorce  from  metaphysics.  This  is  claimed  but 
not  consistently  carried  out. 

2.  The  existence  of  God  is  not  proved  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  external  world,  e.  g.  cosmological  and  teleo¬ 
logical,  nor  even  from  ontological  considerations;  all  these 
go  into  the  discard  of  theoretical  processes.  Thus  it  is 
said  that  “God  is  theoretically  incognoscible.”  But  the 
existence  of  God  is  a  postulate  of  the  mind  in  order  to 
meet  its  own  ends  and  satisfy  itself  with  the  conditions 
of  its  existence.  It  is  a  subjective  judgment  and  not  the 
product  of  reasoned  proof. 

Theology  deals  only  with  God’s  acts  and  manifesta¬ 
tions,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  God’s  essential  nature, 
as  that  would  be  introducing  metaphysics  and  it  is  a  stand¬ 
ing  rule  of  Ritschlianism  that  theology  and  metaphysics 
are  separate  compartments  of  human  knowledge  and  cannot 
be  mixed.  Therefore  the  idea  of  God  is  a  purely  religious 
idea  and  admits  of  being  stated  in  terms  of  religious  value 
only. 

3.  Christ’s  Godhead  is  affirmed  but  not  in  the  Athan- 
asian  sense;  but  as  having  for  us  “the  value  of  God,’’  as 
a  God  revealer  ,  and  as  being  the  founder  of  God’s  King¬ 
dom  on  earth. 

Ritschlianism  does  not  undertake  to  explain  how  Christ 
is  a  Revelation.  How  he  came  to  be  what  he  is,  is  beyond 
the  power  of  investigation.  His  person  is  a  mystery  which 
it  is  vain  for  us  to  try  to  explain.  DeWette  says:  “Jesus 
is  man  in  the  eyes  of  reason;  he  is  God  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  aesthetic  ideal.”  His  divinity  has  the  value 
of  “a  beautiful  aesthetic  religious  symbol.”  This  fairly  rep¬ 
resents  Ritschl’s  idea  of  Christ  as  having  for  believers  the 


360 


APPENDIX  B. 


“religious  value  of  God.”  The  term  Godhead  is  retained 
but  only  as  expressive  of  his  religious  worth  as  a  Reve¬ 
lation  of  God. 

Ritschl  and  his  school  reject  the  ordinary  doctrine  of 
Christ  as  the  second  person  of  the  trinity  incarnate;  re¬ 
ject  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  one  person  as  being 
too  metaphysical.  They  affirm  indeed  the  Godhood  of 
Christ  but  this  as  a  “judgment  of  value.” 

In  the  place  of  the  incarnation  of  a  divine  person,  Rit¬ 
schl  puts  the  substitute,  that  Christ  is  the  perfect  “Reve¬ 
lation”  of  God  to  men,  he  was  one  in  will  and  purpose 
with  God  and  had  knowledge  of  God’s  end  or  purpose  in 
the  creation  and  government  of  the  world;  and  knew  his 
own  calling  to  bring  that  end  to  pass. 

In  this  situation  Christ  had  supremacy  over  the  world, 
meeting  its  problems,  rising  above  its  ills  and  temptations, 
accepting  death  to  realize  the  end,  and  thus  manifesting 
his  sovereignty  over  the  world;  all  of  which  gave  him 
the  value  of  God. 

Christ’s  pre-existence  is  explained  in  the  sense  that 
he  was  the  object  of  the  knowledge  and  will  of  God. 

4.  The  Scriptures  are  not  a  rule  of  faith;  but  are 
witnesses  to  primitive  Christianity.  They  are  not  regarded 
as  authoritative  but  subject  to  the  judgment  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual.  They  receive  very  free  handling  from  most  Rits- 
chlians.  Revelation  does  not  give  us  a  body  of  doctrine, 
nor  even  a  body  of  historical  facts.  Revelation  is  anything 
that  produces  in  us  a  vivid  realization  of  God.  The  facts 
may  be  dispensed  with  and  little  damage  ensue  to  religion, 
the  virgin  birth  of  Christ  may  be  excised  at  the  beginning 
and  his  resurrection  at  the  end  and  the  miracles  in  the 
middle;  yea  if  the  gospels  be  little  more  than  legend  it 
makes  practically  little  difference  to  faith  since  its  value 
does  not  rest  on  its  historicity  but  on  its  worth  to  the 
religious  ideals  of  the  individual.  Thus  experience  becomes 
a  substitute  for  facts;  a  dangerous  situation  indeed. 

Ritschl  makes  the  Scriptures  the  source  of  our  know¬ 
ledge  of  God  and  his  will;  but  never  hesitates  to  expunge 
what  conflicts  with  his  preconceptions,  and  as  to  their  in¬ 
spiration,  he  regards  the  doctrine  with  abhorrence. 

5.  Christianity  is  not  accepted  on  the  ground  of  histor¬ 
ical  facts  nor  reliable  witnesses,  nor  syllogistic  proof;  but 


APPENDIX  B. 


361 


on  the  ground  of  “value  judgment”  or  a  “judgment  of 
worth.”  The  historical  facts  may  be  removed  and  faith 
continue. 

Religious  knowledge  finds  its  sphere  in  independent 
judgments  of  worth.  It  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with 
objective  things,  or  scientific  relations,  but  only  with  what 
furthers  spiritual  attainment.  Thus  Ritschlianism  repudi¬ 
ates  natural  theology  and  has  no  use  for  philosophies  based 
on  scientific  inductions. 

6.  Ritschlianism  regards  the  soul  as  subsisting  only 
in  the  exercise  of  its  functions,  and  as  to  any  substantial 
reality  that  provides  a  basis  for  these  manifestations,  or 
in  which  its  faculties  inhere,  that  is  but  a  figment  of  the 
imagination.  This  is  the  paradox  of  paradoxes;  but  be¬ 
trays  its  Kantian  affiliation,  and  approaches  the  position 
of  Hume  and  John  Stuart  Mill. 

7.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  scarcely  exists  in  Rit¬ 
schlianism.  The  fatherhood  of  God  refers  specifically  to 
the  historical  personality  of  Christ  and  to  the  community 
founded  by  him. 

The  Spirit  of  God  is  declared  to  be  “the  Knowledge 
which  God  has  of  himself  and  his  own  end  in  which  the 
ends  of  Creation  and  Revelation  are  comprehended.” 

“Holy  Spirit  designates  in  the  New  Testament  the 
Spirit  of  God,  so  far  as  He  is  the  ground  of  the  Know¬ 
ledge  of  God,  and  of  the  specific  religious  and  moral  life 
in  the  Christian  community,”  for  “the  practical  knowledge 
of  God  in  the  community  dependent  on  God  is  identical 
with  the  Knowledge  which  God  has  of  himself.” 

8.  Atonement  is  not  expiation  of  guilt,  or  satisfaction 
to  the  law  of  God  by  Christ’s  bearing,  in  man’s  stead,  the 
penalty  of  sin. 

Sin  is  not  a  thing  that  required  retribution  or  needs 
atonement  made  for  it.  All  that  is  necessary,  in  this  sys¬ 
tem,  is  for  the  sinner  to  come  into  fellowship  with  God 
and  into  espousal  of  God’s  aims  and  ends.  This  he  may 
be  moved  to  do  by  the  life  and  death  of  Christ.  God  is  a 
friend  to  Christ  and  Christ  is  a  friend  to  the  sinner,  and 
God’s  favor  is  mediated  to  the  sinner  by  the  position  which 
Christ  holds  in  the  favor  of  God.  All  notion  of  expiation 
and  the  covering  of  sin  by  sacrifice  is  a  mistake  on  the  part 
of  the  writers  of  the  Scriptures. 


362 


APPENDIX  B 


9.  There  is  no  original  sin,  since  the  soul  has  no 
subsistence  other  than  that  which  it  has  in  its  activities. 

10.  Justification  is  not  the  removal  of  guilt  or  ac¬ 
quittal  from  penalty,  but  the  coming  into  fellowship  with 
God  despite  one’s  guilt  and  is  identical  with  reconciliation 
and  also  with  regeneration. 

11.  Ritschlianism  is  expert  in  putting  new  content 
into  old  terminology.  Omnipotence  does  not  mean  supreme 
power  in  God.  Omnipresence  does  not  mean  filling  all 
immensity.  These  are  only  expressions  of  faith  that  God’s 
care  will  never  fail  his  people. 

Righteousness  has  no  relation  to  just  awards,  but  ex¬ 
presses  God’s  consistency  in  carrying  through  his  purposes. 
Eternity  does  not  mean  existence  without  beginning  or 
end,  but  that  God’s  purpose  is  always  the  same.  So  with 
the  whole  theological  phraseology;  Atonement,  Inspiration, 
Deity  of  Christ,  Trinity,  Justification,  External  Life,  etc. — 
all  are  sublimated  into  new  meanings  far  removed  from 
the  ordinary  usage  and  conception  of  them.  Words  have 
an  accepted  meaning.  To  counterfeit  words  is  little  less 
dishonest  than  to  counterfeit  currency. 

Appendix  C. 

Admissions  of  evolutionists  and  testimony  of  scientists. 

Darwin  said  in  1860:  “I  have  never  for  a  moment 
doubted  that,  though  I  cannot  see  my  errors,  much  of  my 
book  (The  Origin  of  Species)  will  be  proved  erroneous;” 
and  again  in  1862,  “I  look  at  it  as  absolutely  certain  that 
very  much  of  the  ‘Origin’  will  be  proved  rubbish ;  but  I 
expect  and  hope  that  the  framework  will  stand.” 

Again  Darwin  said:  (Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  25) 
“There  are  two  or  three  millions  of  species  on  earth — suf¬ 
ficient  field,  one  might  think,  for  observation.  But  it  must 
be  said  today  that,  in  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  trained  ob¬ 
servers,  not  one  change  of  a  species  into  another  is  on 
record.” 

Alfred  Russell  Wallace,  one  of  the  leading  evolutionists 
of  Darwin’s  day  says:  “There  must  have  been  three  in¬ 
terpositions  of  Divine  and  supernatural  power  to  account 
for  things  as  they  are.  The  agreement  of  science  with 
Genesis  is  surely  very  striking.  There  is  a  gulf  between 


APPENDIX  C. 


363 


/ 


matter  and  nothing;  one  between  life  and  the  non-living; 
and  a  third  between  man  and  the  lower  creation;  and 
science  cannot  bridge  any  of  them.” 

Huxley  said:  “In  vain  have  the  links  that  should  bind 
man  to  the  monkey  been  sought.  Not  a  single  one  is 
there  to  show.  The  so-called  Protanthropos  who  should 
exhibit  this  link  has  not  been  found.  None  have  been 
found  that  stood  nearer  to  the  monkey  than  the  men  of 
today.” 

And  again:  “After  much  consideration,  and  assuredly 
with  no  bias  against  Darwin’s  views,  it  is  our  clear  con¬ 
viction  that,  as  the  evidence  stands,  it  is  not  absolutely 
proven  that  a  group  of  animals  having  all  the  characters 
exhibited  by  ‘species’  in  nature  has  ever  been  originated 
by  selection  whether  artificial  or  natural.”  Lay  Sermons, 
p.  323. 

Huxley  at  one  time  believed  that  he  had  found  the 
nexus  between  tne  animate  and  inanimate  world  in  the 
deep  sea  ooze  which  he  named  Bathybius.  He  afterwards 
gave  up  the  theory  when  it  was  found  that  all  organized 
matter  in  the  ooze  had  dropped  into  it  and  did  not  arise 
from  it. 

He  subsequently  declared  a  link  to  be  found  connecting 
the  horse  with  the  four-toed  Orohippus.  Others  dispute 
the  validity  of  the  argument. 

It  is  doubtful  if  the  splint  on  a  horse’s  fore  leg  ever 
was  a  toe.  It  is  denied  that  the  toed  fossils  belong  to  the 
horse  family  or  pedigree;  and  if  they  do  the  variety  is 
within  the  limits  of  the  equine  species  and  therefore  not 
a  proof  of  the  transmutation  of  species. 

Agassiz  says:  “The  theory  is  a  mistake,  untrue  in  its 
facts,  unscientific  in  its  methods,  and  mischievous  in  its 
tendency.  There  is  not  a  fact  known  to  science  tending 
to  show  that  any  being  in  the  natural  process  of  repro¬ 
duction  and  multiplication  has  ever  diverged  from  the  course 
natural  to  its  kind,  or  that  a  single  kind  has  ever  been 
transmuted  into  any  other.” 

Again  Agassiz  says :  “It  is  evident  that  there  is  a  mani¬ 
fest  progress  in  the  succession  of  beings  on  the  surface  of 
the  earth.  Among  the  vertebrates  there  is  an  increasing 
resemblance  to  man.  But  this  connection  is  not  the  con¬ 
sequence  of  a  direct  lineage  between  the  fauna  of  different 
ages.  There  is  nothing  like  parental  descent  connecting 


364 


APPENDIX  C. 


them.  The  fishes  of  the  Palaeozoic  age  are  in  no  respect 
the  ancestors  of  the  reptiles  of  the  Secondary  age ;  nor  does 
man  descend  from  the  mammals  which  preceded  him  in 
the  Tertiary  age.” 

Prof.  Dana  in  his  Manual  of  Geology  says:  “Science 
has  no  explanation  of  the  origin  of  life.  The  living  organ¬ 
ism,  instead  of  being  the  product  of  physical  forces,  controls 
those  forces  for  its  higher  forms,  functions,  and  purposes.” 

Prof.  Lionel  S.  Beale  of  London,  one  of  the  greatest 
physiological  microscopists  the  world  has  ever  produced, 
said  in  1903:  “The  idea  of  any  relation  between  the  non¬ 
living,  by  gradual  advance  of  lifeless  matter  to  the  lowest 
forms  of  life,  and  so  onward  to  the  higher  and  more  com¬ 
plex,  has  not  the  slightest  evidence  from  any  facts  of  any 
section  of  living  nature  of  which  anything  is  known.” 

Romanes,  in  his  early  years  an  avowed  evolutionist, 
later  renounced  it. 

Mivart,  who  once  considered  evolution  sufficient  to  ac¬ 
count  for  man’s  body,  later  held  that  it  could  account  for 
neither  his  body  nor  his  soul,  and  called  natural  selection 
“a  puerile  hypothesis.” 

Prof.  Virchow,  formerly  an  advocate  of  Haeckel’s  views, 
subsequently  declared:  “It  is  all  nonsense.  It  cannot  be 
proved  by  science  that  man  descends  from  the  ape  or  any 
other  animal.  Ever  since  the  announcement  of  the  theory 
all  real  scientific  knowledge  has  proceeded  in  the  opposite 
direction.” 

Sir  J.  Wm.  Dawson,  the  eminent  Canadian  geologist, 
adds  his  testimony:  “The  records  of  the  rocks  is  decid¬ 
edly  against  evolutionists,  especially  in  the  abrupt  appear¬ 
ance  of  new  forms  under  separate  specific  types,  and  with¬ 
out  apparent  predecessors.  In  tracing  back  animals  and 
groups  of  animals  in  geologic  times  we  find  that  they  al¬ 
ways  end  without  any  link  of  connection  with  previous 
being,  and  under  circumstances  which  render  any  connec¬ 
tion  highly  improbable.  The  introduction  of  animal  types 
must  have  been  abrupt  and  by  some  influence  quite  dif¬ 
ferent  from  that  of  evolution.  Paleontology  furnishes  no 
evidence  as  to  the  actual  transformation  of  one  species 
into  another;  the  drift  of  its  testimony  is  to  show  that 
species  came  per  saltum  (by  a  leap)  rather  than  by  slow 
and  gradual  process.” 


APPENDIX  C. 


365 


Prof.  Fleishmann  of  Erlangen,  who  once  accepted  Dar¬ 
winism,  later  said:  “The  Darwinian  theory  of  descent  has 
not  a  single  fact  to  confirm  it  in  the  realm  of  nature.  It 
is  not  the  result  of  scientific  research,  but  is  purely  the 
product  of  imagination.” 

Dr.  Etheridge,  of  the  British  Museum,  has  said:  “In 
all  this  great  museum  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
of  transmutation  of  species.  Nine-tenths  of  the  talk  of 
evolutionists  is  sheer  nonsense,  not  founded  on  observa¬ 
tion  and  wholly  unsupported  by  fact.  This  museum  is  full 
of  proofs  of  the  utter  falsity  of  their  views.” 

Prof.  William  Bateson,  President  of  the  British  As¬ 
sociation  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  conceded  to  be 
an  evolutionist,  frankly  admits  that  nothing  is  yet  scien¬ 
tifically  known  concerning  the  origin  of  species.  In  an 
address  in  Feb.  1922  he  is  reported  as  saying:  “It  is  im¬ 
possible  for  scientists  longer  to  agree  with  Darwin’s  theory 
of  the  origin  of  species.  No  explanation  whatever  has  been 
offered  to  account  for  the  fact  that,  after  forty  years,  no 
evidence  has  been  discovered  to  verify  his  genesis  of  spe¬ 
cies.” 

Prof.  Bateson  further  says:  “Biologically  we  have  no 
evidence  in  support  of  the  theory  of  evolution — we  walk 
by  faith,  not  by  sight.”  Yet  in  face  of  this  admission  he 
says:  “We  are  still  evolutionists.” 

The  late  Alexander  Graham  Bell  said:  “Natural  selec¬ 
tion  does  not  and  cannot  produce  new  species  or  varieties 
or  cause  modifications  of  living  organisms  to  come  into 
existence.  On  the  contrary  its  sole  function  is  to  prevent 
evolution.” 

Prof.  Wm.  Berryman  Scott,  Professor  of  geology  in 
Princeton  University,  in  speaking  of  the  causes  of  evolu¬ 
tion  says:  “Personally,  I  have  never  been  satisfied  that 
Darwin’s  explanation  is  the  rightful  one;  to  one  who  ap¬ 
proaches  the  problem  from  the  study  of  fossils,  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  natural  selection  does  not  appear  to  offer  an  ade¬ 
quate  explanation  of  the  observed  facts.” 

Professors  Bateson  and  Scott,  in  these  statements,  are 
not  so  much  denying  the  fact  of  evolution  as  the  cause 
assigned  by  Darwin,  viz.  natural  selection,  which  leaves 
too  much  to  chance.  It  is  somewhat  the  fashion  now  to 
accept  the  theory  of  evolution  and  dispute  all  the  causes 
hitherto  assigned  to  account  for  it,  whether  in  natural 
selection  or  heredity. 


366 


APPENDIX  C. 


This  leaves  the  way  open  for  the  theistic  evolutionist 
to  insert  God  as  the  only  adequate  cause.  This  has  been 
done  by  Prof.  Wm.  Brenton  Greene,  Jr.,  in  The  Princeton 
Theological  Review,  Oct.  1922.  However  Prof.  Greene  con¬ 
fines  evolution  to  the  limits  of  the  species,  and  in  deny¬ 
ing  transmutation  denies  the  fundamental  position  of  the 
whole  contention.  In  this  he  coincides  with  the  best  estab¬ 
lished  evidence  in  the  matter. 

Prof.  Conklin  of  Princeton  University  admits  that  evo¬ 
lution  is  not  a  process  in  actual  operation  today;  that  the 
whole  vast  machinery  with  its  thousands  of  ramifications, 
that  has  been  in  operation  for  countless  millions  of  years, 
has  now  ceased  to  function,  or  has  run  into  a  blind  alley 
and  come  to  a  dead  stop. 

Is  not  the  admission  sufficient  to  refute  the  whole 
claim  that  it  was  ever  in  operation  at  all?  On  the  other 
hand,  the  developmentalist,  who  recognizes  the  limits  of 
evolution,  can  readily  admit  that  the  development  process 
is  in  operation  today  just  as  much  as  it  ever  has  been. 

In  all  Prof.  Conklin’s  book  there  is  not  a  word  of 
proof  that  the  theory  of  evolution  is  true.  It  is  so  much 
easier  to  assume  that  a  thing  is  true  than  to  prove  it  is. 

Hseckel’s  confession.  “I  begin  at  once  with  the  con¬ 
trite  confession  that  a  small  per  cent  of  my  embryo  dia¬ 
grams  are  really  forgeries,  those  namely  for  which  the  ob¬ 
served  material  is  so  incomplete  or  insufficient  as  to  com¬ 
pel  us  to  fill  in  and  reconstruct  the  missing  links  by  hy¬ 
pothesis  and  comparative  synthesis .  I  should  feel 

utterly  condemned  by  the  admission,  were  it  not  that  hun¬ 
dreds  of  the  best  observers  and  most  reputable  biologists 
lie  under  the  same  charge.  The  great  majority  of  all  mor¬ 
phological,  anatomical,  histological,  and  embryological  dia¬ 
grams  are  not  true  to  nature,  but  are  more  or  less  schema¬ 
tized,  doctored  and  reconstructed.”  Yet  these  diagrams 
have  been  taught  for  facts. 

Prof.  J.  Arthur  Thompson,  of  Aberdeen  University, 
author  of  Outlines  of  Science,  wrote  in  1919:  “The  ques¬ 
tion  resolves  itself  into  a  matter  of  fact.  Have  we  any 
concrete  evidence  to  warrant  us  in  believing  that  definite 
modifications  are  ever,  as  such,  or  in  any  representative 
degree,  transmitted?  It  appears  to  us  that  we  have  not.” 


APPENDIX  D. 


367 


Appendix  D.  The  Man  of  Sin. 

Who  or  what  is  the  Man  of  Sin  referred  to  in  II 
Thess.  2:3? 

1.  In  Dan.  11:21 — 45  we  have  the  description  of  a 
King  called  a  vile  person,  one  who  shall  pollute  the  sanc¬ 
tuary,  cause  the  continual  sacrifice  to  cease,  and  set  up 
the  abomination  of  desolation.  This  vile  King  was  to  be 
very  powerful,  make  war  and  conquer,  and  show  his  peculiar 
spite  against  the  holy  land,  and  the  holy  covenant. 

The  one  character  that  fits  this  description  and  this 
situation  is  Antiochus  Epiphanes  the  monster  of  the  Sel- 
eucid  dynasty  of  Syria  who  reigned  B.  C.  175-164. 

That  this  identification  is  correct  is  seen  in  the  histori¬ 
cal  allusions  of  the  whole  eleventh  chapter.  The  king  of 
the  north  and  the  king  of  the  south  are  the  figures  in 
the  scene.  This  refers  to  Syria  and  Egypt.  The  land  of 
Israel  lay  between  them,  sometimes  held  by  the  Ptolemies, 
sometimes  by  the  Selencidse,  and  finally  utterly  ravaged  by 
Antiochus.  The  reference  to  the  abomination  that  maketh 
desolate  is  therefore  applied  historically  to  Antiochus  Epi¬ 
phanes. 

2.  But  in  Dan.  9:26,  27  there  is  reference  to  an 
“Abomination”  connected  with  the  “cutting  off  of  Messiah,” 
and  with  “the  prince  that  shall  come  and  destroy  the  city 
and  the  sanctuary.  ’  ’  This  fits  a  different  historical 
event. 

In  Matt.  24:15,  Christ  applies  this  prophecy  to  the 
times  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  “When  ye  shall 
see  the  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet,  standing  in  the  holy  place.”  The  holy  place  was 
an  apartment  of  the  temple  and  these  words  of  Christ 
seem  not  only  to  connect  this  abomination  with  the  siege 
of  Jerusalem,  but  to  place  him  among  the  besiegers.  This 
“Abomination”  is  evidently  Titus  and  the  Roman  armies. 
And  this  is  made  certain  by  the  corresponding  passage 
in  Luke  21:20.  “And  when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  com¬ 
passed  with  armies.”  Luke  explains  Matthew  and  there 
is  no  doubt  whatever  as  to  the  definite  historical  reference 
in  regard  to  the  “Abomination.” 

It  is  obvious  that  Daniel  refers  in  one  place  to  Anti¬ 
ochus,  and  in  the  other  to  the  Roman  power. 

3.  In  II  Thess.  2:1 — 12  we  have  Paul’s  reference  to 
the  Man  of  Sin.  Several  features  appear ; — the  Man  of  Sin, 


368 


APPENDIX  D. 


the  Apostasy,  the  Hinderer,  the  Day  of  the  Lord,  and  a 
Coming. 

‘‘The  Man  of  Sin;”  who  is  he?  As  Christ  referred 
to  his  standing  in  the  holy  place,  so  Paul  says :  “He  sitteth 
in  the  temple  of  God,  setting  himself  forth  as  God.”  This 
contemplates  the  temple  as  still  standing,  therefore  prior 
to  its  fall.  Both  Christ  and  Paul  connect  him  with  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  locate  him  therefore  about  the 
time  of  Jerusalem’s  fall. 

The  best  opinion  identifies  him  with  the  Roman  Em¬ 
peror,  or  the  line  of  Emperors  of  that  time,  and  the  de¬ 
scription  fits  the  case.  Caligula  with  his  passion  for  dei¬ 
fication,  Nero  the  persecutor,  Vespasian  the  miracle  worker, 
Titus,  invading  the  Holy  of  Holies,  with  his  theocratic 
assumptions  and  idolatrous  insignia;  and  all  that  line  of 
persecuting  monsters  fill  up  the  outline  as  Paul  sketched 
it  to  the  Thessalonians.  The  other  features  of  the  passage 
complete  the  picture.  “The  Apostasy”  was  the  Jewish 
apostasy.  They  had  rejected  their  promised  Messiah,  cruci¬ 
fied  the  Lord  of  Glory,  and  persecuted  his  followers  to  the 
death.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  Paul  in  the  first  epistle 
2:15,  16,  where  he  describes  the  Jews’  treatment  of  Christ, 
Christians,  and  Christianity,  and  ends  by  saying  that 
“wrath  is  come  upon  them  to  the  uttermost.” 

“The  one  that  hindereth  until  he  is  taken  out  of  the 
way,”  was  evidently  something  existing  when  Paul  wrote. 
It  was  then  hindering  the  complete  manifestation  of  the 
Man  of  Sin;  but  when  removed  all  the  malignity  of  that 
evil  power  would  descend  upon  the  head  of  the  infant 
church.  How  well  this  corresponds  with  the  Jewish  state! 
It  was  soon  to  be  taken  away.  At  first  Christianity  was 
confused  with  Judaism,  and  thus  tolerated  by  the  Roman 
power,  but  when  Jerusalem  fell  and  Christianity  became 
recognized  as  a  new  religion,  the  venom  of  the  Man  of 
Sin  was  visited  upon  the  Christian  church. 

“The  day  of  the  Lord,”  “the  brightness  of  his  coming,” 
was  to  destroy  the  Man  of  Sin.  Observe  that  Paul  does 
not  say  that  all  these  events  were  immediately  consecu¬ 
tive,  nor  that  the  Man  of  Sin  will  be  reigning  and  dominant 
at  the  time  of  Christ’s  coming,  but  only  that  he,  with  all 
other  wicked  persecutors,  shall  meet  his  doom  at  the  hands 
of  Christ  at  his  coming.  However  there  was  a  “Day  of 
the  Lord”  that  swept  that  wicked  persecutor  from  the 
earth. 


APPENDIX  D 


369 


4.  The  testimony  of  John. 

John  who  lived  in  the  time  of  this  Man  of  Sin,  and 
felt  some  of  his  bitter  thrusts  mentions  Anti-Christ  four 
times  in  his  epistles. 

I  Jno.  2:18.  As  ye  have  heard  that  Anti-Christ  shall 
come  even  now  are  there  many  Anti-Christs. 

I  Jno.  2:22.  He  is  the  Anti-Christ  that  denieth  the 
Father  and  the  Son. 

I  Jno.  4:3.  (Rev.  Ver.)  And  every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth  not  Jesus  is  not  of  God;  and  this  is  the  spirit  of 
the  Anti-Christ  whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  cometh, 
and  now  it  is  in  the  world  already. 

II  Jno.  1:7.  For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the 
world  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and  an  Anti-Christ. 


Appendix  E.  Fixing  the  Date  of  Christ’s  Return. 

Fixing  the  date  of  Christ’s  return  has  been  the  past¬ 
time  of  a  few  speculators  but  the  results  have  not  justi¬ 
fied  the  wisdom  of  the  attempts. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  methods  by  which  these 
prognostications  have  been  made,  and  a  glance  at  them 
is  sufficient  to  impeach  the  sense  if  not  the  sanity  of  their 
authors. 

Chief  among  these  was  Wm.  Miller  who  convinced  him¬ 
self  and  a  body  of  followers  that  Christ  would  return  in 
1843.  His  followers  were  wrought  up  to  the  highest  pitch 
of  expectancy.  Some  sold  their  property,  some  robed  them¬ 
selves  in  white,  and  from  lofty  vantage  points  awaited 
their  ascension  on  a  certain  night  in  October.  But  the 
night  came  and  passed  as  any  other  night ;  days,  weeks  and 
months  succeeded  as  usual;  some  resorted  to  revision  of 
figures,  some  sank  into  sullen  unbelief,  some  of  the  leaders 
did  not  long  survive  their  disappointment,  and  the  result 
as  a  whole  was  disastrous  to  the  reputation  of  the  individ¬ 
uals  and  to  the  credit  of  religion. 

Some  of  these  methods  are  subjoined  as  a  warning 
against  unsound  principles  of  interpretation. 

1.  The  Scheme  of  Wm.  Miller. 

Dan.  8:13,  14.  “How  long  shall  be  the  vision  con¬ 
cerning  the  continual  sacrifice,  and  the  transgression  that 


370 


APPENDIX  E. 


desolates,  to  give  up  the  sanctuary  and  the  host  to  be  trod¬ 
den  under  foot? 

“And  he  said  unto  me:  Unto  two  thousand  and 
three  hundred  days  then  shall  the  sanctuary  be  cleansed. ” 

Mr.  Miller  started  with  the  amazing  assumption  that 
the  cleansing  of  the  sanctuary  was  the  purification  of  the 
world  by  fire  at  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  day-for-a-year  theory,  would  eventuate  in  2300 
years  from  a  certain  date.  The  starting  point  of  the  2300 
years  was  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  to  rebuild  Jerusalem, 
which  he  fixed  at  467  B.  C. 

But  what  the  date  or  that  event  had  to  do  with  the 
Second  Advent  still  remains  a  mystery.  Accordingly  2300 
years  from  467  B.  C.  results  in  1843  A.  D.  the  date  of 
Christ’s  return;  Quod  erat  demonstrandum. 

But  Mr.  Miller  had  another  equally  lucid  demonstra¬ 
tion. 

The  “little  horn’’  of  Dan.  8:9  was  assumed  to  be  the 
Papal  power. 

In  8:11  we  read:  “By  him  the  continual  sacrifice  was 
taken  away.” 

To  Mr.  Miller  this  meant  that  the  Papal  power  took 
away  the  heathen  sacrifices,  and  abolished  pagan  idolatry, 
and  this,  he  declared  to  have  taken  place  in  538  A.  D.  On 
what  historical  grounds  he  makes  the  assertion  we  may 
well  inquire. 

In  Dan.  7 :25  the  horn  that  arose  after  the  ten  horns 
“shall  wear  out  the  saints  of  the  most  high,  and  they  shall 
be  given  into  his  hand  until  a  time  and  times  and  half 
a  time.”  This  three  and  a  half  times  are  1260  days,  and 
on  the  day-for-a-year  theory  are  1260  years.  There  is 
therefore  some  period  of  Papal  power  lasting  1260  years. 
This  is  the  time  from  the  overthrow  of  paganism  till  the 
end  of  the  Papal  power,  therefore  the  Papal  power  ends 
in  1798. 

Again  we  may  inject  an  interrogation  point? 

But  since  Dan.  12:12  adds  “Blessed  is  he  that  waiteth 
and  cometh  to  the  1335  days,”  this  adds  45  years  to  the 
1290  of  the  11th  verse  and  so  adds  45  to  1798  and  brings 
us  again  to  1843  as  the  date  of  the  Second  Coming. 

There  is  a  discrepancy  between  the  1260  days  of  Dan. 
7:25  and  the  1290  days  of  Dan.  12:11  amounting  to  30, 


APPENDIX  E. 


371 


but  in  the  latter  reference  Mr.  Miller  dates  the  overthrow 
of  paganism  as  508  instead  of  538  and  so  arrives  through 
all  these  difficulties  at  1843. 

The  fallacy  of  the  whole  scheme  is  evident.  Not  one 
of  his  assumptions  has  any  basis  in  fact.  The  cleansing 
of  the  sanctuary  is  not  the  purification  of  the  world  by  fire ; 
the  little  horn  is  not  the  Papacy;  and  the  day-for-a-year 
theory  discredits  any  interpreter  who  adopts  it.  The  mar¬ 
vel  is  that  any  one  believed  him.  The  credulity  of  his  fol¬ 
lowers  however  was  due  to  the  positiveness  with  which  he 
asserted  that  this  was  the  revelation  of  the  infallible  word 
of  God,  and  further  because  they  believed  that  in  answer 
to  their  prayers  God  had  given  them  by  immediate  in¬ 
spiration  of  his  Spirit  the  power  to  understand  and  inter¬ 
pret  the  prophecies.  So  ended  Millerism. 

The  Date  of  Christ’s  return  according  to  Wm.  Duthie. 

Another  very  recent  writer  is  William  Duthie,  who 
rivals,  if  he  does  not  surpass  Mr.  Miller  in  the  manipulation 
of  figures  and  the  invention  of  fanciful  interpretations. 

Mr.  Duthie  argues  thus:  The  fiftieth  year  was  jubilee 
year  in  Israel.  If  Israel  should  forget  the  laws  of  the 
Lord,  captivity  was  threatened.  “Then  shall  the  land  en¬ 
joy  her  Sabbaths  as  long  as  it  lieth  desolate  and  ye  be  in 
your  enemies  land,  because  it  did  not  rest  in  your  Sabbaths 
when  ye  dwelt  upon  it.”  The  Second  Advent  is  the  time 
of  restitution  of  all  things,  the  great  jubilee  for  all  the 
earth;  but  the  earth  must  be  void  of  such  blessing  or  lie 
desolate  till  that  time.  Therefore  as  the  Jews  were  sev¬ 
enty  years  in  captivity  in  Babylon  before  their  land  was 
restored  to  them  so  must  there  be  seventy  jubilee  periods 
or  seventy  times  fifty  years  before  the  final  jubilee,  or 
3500  years.  This  3500  years  started  to  count  from  the  time 
they  came  into  the  land,  which,  according  to  Mr.  Duthie, 
was  1574  B.  C.  Therefore  3500  years  from  1574  B.  C.  or 
1926  A.  D.  is  the  date  of  Christ’s  return. 

That  the  year  of  jubilee  multiplied  by  the  years  of 
captivity  should  produce  the  date  of  the  Lord’s  return 
will  probably  not  appear  very  evident,  nor  seem  very  con¬ 
clusive  to  men  of  ordinary  attainments. 

Another  speculation  of  Mr.  Duthie  is  this:  The  Jewish 
age  began  with  the  death  of  Jacob  which  he  fixes  at  1813 
B.  C.  The  Jewish  age  ended  with  the  baptism  of  the  gen¬ 
tile  convert  Cornelius  in  37  A.  D.  Therefore  the  Jewish 


372 


APPENDIX  E. 


age  lasted  1850  years.  Now  the  gospel  age  must  last  just 
as  long  as  the  Jewish  age.  (How  he  knows  that  he  does 
not  reveal.) 

Therefore  the  gospel  age  closed  in  87  plus  1850  years 
or  in  1887  A.  D.  at  which  time  God  rejected  the  church. 
Since  1887  “the  church  has  lost  its  saving  power.  It  has 
become  a  harlot.” 

But  as  the  Jewish  people  had  83  years  of  grace  from 
the  conversion  of  Cornelius  in  37  till  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  in  70,  so  there  will  be  33  years  from  1887  till 
the  gentile  kingdoms  are  overthrown  which  fixes  their  dis¬ 
solution  in  1920. 

Again,  Dan.  4 :32  informs  us  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
afflicted  with  a  species  of  insanity  for  seven  years.  Mr. 
Duthie  assumes  that  those  seven  years  are  the  type  of 
gentile  rule  in  the  earth.  (How  he  proves  it  we  would 
like  to  know.)  Adopting  the  discredited  day-for-a-year 
theory  he  multiplies  7  by  360  and  gets  the  product  2520 
the  number  of  years  in  which  the  gentiles  will  rule  the 
earth. 

This  rule  begins  when  Babylon  conquered  Juaah  or  in 
606  B.  C.  Thus  adding  2520  to  606  B.  C.  gives  us  1914 
A.  D.  the  date  when  gentile  rule  ends. 

But  why  the  insanity  of  Nebuchadnezzar  should  fix 
the  time  of  gentile  rule  on  the  earth  we  must  leave  to 
the  superior  genius  of  Mr.  Duthie  to  explain. 

By  such  acrobatic  feats  of  interpretation  it  is  possible 
to  make  the  Scriptures  prove  anything  whatsoever. 


' 


. 


